[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] preemptive kernel, preemptive-2.3.52-A7
    On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:

    >no, we do not want to execute signal code in that context. I've
    >intentionally avoided this. Think about it, the signal handler should not
    >be executed now because the eg. interrupted memcpy() in the middle of an
    >(otherwise uninterruptible) is not really intended to return to user-space
    >anywhere. It does work technically to a certain degree, but jumping to
    >ret_with_reschedule is just asking for trouble - unbounded kernel-stack
    >recursion for example, and i think some security holes are possible as


    >i havent seen any crash with preemptive-2.3.52-B7. (The only crashes i
    >ever got were the controlled asserts in preempt_on(), checking for
    >TASK_RUNNING.) [..]

    Right, all the preemtable kernel code has to be definitely in


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.026 / U:1.764 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site