lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: timer_bh behaviour incorrect for 2.2.13?

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > while ((active = get_active_bhs()) {

how about .... __sti(); ?

> > > clear_active_bhs(active);
> > > ...
>
> ++ __cli();
>
> > > }
> > >
>
> you have missed the _real_ reason why the above 'bug' was there. It's a
> feature and prevents denial of service attacks. Especially wrt. networking
> it's very easy to flood a box with bh traffic, and if we are not careful
> then slower systems (routers) can effectively be locked up just by
> bombarding them with small/tricky packets. So we were always intentionally
> trying to guarantee that bhs do not get rerun infinitely.
>
Or was the __sti() left out intentionally to help prevent DOS
attacks?

Wm


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.062 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site