linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RFC: have tcp_recvmsg() check kthread_should_stop() and treat it as if it were signalled

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

Message-Id: <E1HwpmG-0008LW-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:30:04 +1000
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	jlayton@...hat.com (Jeff Layton)
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: have tcp_recvmsg() check kthread_should_stop() and treat it as if it were signalled

Please cc networking patches to netdev@...r.kernel.org.

Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> The following patch is a first stab at removing this need. It makes it
> so that in tcp_recvmsg() we also check kthread_should_stop() at any
> point where we currently check to see if the task was signalled. If
> that returns true, then it acts as if it were signalled and returns to
> the calling function.

This just doesn't seem to fit.  Why should networking care about kthreads?

Perhaps you can get kthread_stop to send a signal instead?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/