lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Race condition in 2.4 tasklet handling (cli() broken?)
 Additional suspicious things.

1. tasklet_kill() has similar race condition. mb() required before
tasklet_unlock_wait().

2. local_bh_count() and global_bh_lock tests inside wait_on_irq()
suggests that cli() tries to block not only interrupt handling but all
softirq handlings of all cpus; however, current implementation does
not guarantee that.

Because local_bh_count is adjusted in do_softirq() _after_
decrementing local_irq_count(), other cpus may happily begin
softirq/tasklet/bh handling while a cpu is inside cli() - sti()
critical section.

If softirq handling is not guaranteed to be blocked during cli() -
sti() critical section, local_bh_count() and global_bh_lock tests
inside wait_on_irq() are redundant, and if it should be guranteed,
current implementation seems broken.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.070 / U:2.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site