Subject: Re: [patch] preemptive kernel, preemptive-2.3.52-A7
From: Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 09:48:38 PST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a22 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 04:15:03 PST