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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:28 EST