linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail.

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:38:49 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...pend2.net>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...esys.com,
	linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail.

Hi.

On Friday 14 July 2006 18:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 01:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:18:43 +1000
> >
> > Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...pend2.net> wrote:
> > > Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail.
> > > I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during
> > > suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the
> > > right solution.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...pend2.net>
> > >
> > >  rtmutex-tester.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c
> > > 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c ---
> > > 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c	2006-07-07
> > > 10:27:46.000000000 +1000 +++
> > > 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c	2006-07-14
> > > 07:48:01.000000000 +1000 @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void
> > > *data)
> > >  	struct test_thread_data *td = data;
> > >  	int ret;
> > >
> > > -	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
> > > +	current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
> > >  	allow_signal(SIGHUP);
> > >
> > >  	for(;;) {
> >
> > I yesterday queued up the below patch.  Which approach is most
> > appropriate?
>
> I prefer the one that makes these threads freeze (ie. the Luca's patch).

Ok.

Nigel
-- 
See http://www.suspend2.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
lists, wiki and bugzilla info.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped