lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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
>well.

Agreed.

>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
TASK_RUNNING.

Andrea


-
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 13:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans