Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 1999 11:04:33 -0500 (EST) | From | William Montgomery <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |