| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:56:39 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: "Frantisek Rysanek" <Frantisek.Rysanek@...t.cz> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: setitimer vs. threads: SIGALRM returned to which thread? (process master or individual child) "Frantisek Rysanek" <Frantisek.Rysanek@...t.cz> writes: > Yes, it used to be quite a relief to have Linux do the management of > timers for me. Now I have two options to choose from: > 1) write my own "timer queueing" (timekeeping) code to order the > timers for me in the master thread > 2) find another function, similar to setitimer(), that would function > the way setitimer() used to work in the old days... POSIX timers (timer_create et.al.) allow specifying the signal. So if you use custom RT signals for each threads and block them in the threads you don't want them it should work. This would limit the maximum number of threads though because there's only a limited range of RT signals. There are probably other ways to do this too, e.g. with some clever use of timerfd_create in recent kernels. Or you could overwrite the clone in the thread library to not set signal sharing semantics. This might have other bad side effects though. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists