Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:48:38 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |