Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux-2.2.2-pre2.. | From | Philippe Troin <> | Date | 07 Feb 1999 02:44:57 -0800 |
| |
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
> My theory on why it happens (which is just a theory, mind you, but I feel > better about having a theory, and I have a fairly simple patch to try out > that I sent out just a moment ago) is as follows:
8< snip >8
> The patch I sent out (and here it is appended again) is completely > untested, and may not work at all (maybe the first time you close a pty > pair the kernel will blow up), but I wanted to check the above theory by > just making the pty case completely synchronous - which it should be > anyway, because it's just silly to use the routine designed for > asynchronous events for something synchronous like a pty that doesn't use > interrupts at all.
That would have been my question (why using the tq for ptys...).
> Anyway, that two-liner is good enough to essentially make the above case > completely impossible to trigger on any normal machine, but I'll still > have to do something else to make sure that _real_ asynchronous hangup > events can't lead to problems. The easiest way to fix things is probably > to do a simple reference count on the tty structures, but I want to > validate the basic problem first.
Removed the tty->termios patch and applied this one (that it started from a fresh kernel tree + this patch): no more warnings, no more oopses. Looks like the theory's good :-)
Ptys are fixed for me, but I'll do more testing to be sure.
Linus, if you need a testbed to test asynchronous hangups on ptys (reverting to the old tty_hangup() rather than the synchronous tty_vhangup() temporarily), I can crash my box a few more times :-)
Phil.
- 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/
| |