linux-kernel - Re: Any lightweight way for one thread to force another thread to suspend execution?

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]

Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:14:56 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Eric Smith <eric@...uhaha.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Any lightweight way for one thread to force another thread to 
      suspend execution?


On Sunday 2008-06-22 03:55, Eric Smith wrote:
>Andi wrote:
>> Any such mechanism will need a syscall, and it's unlikely that
>> any syscall will get much cheaper than a kill(SIGSTOP)
>
>But is there a way for the process sending the SIGSTOP to wait until it
>has taken effect?  I need a method to *synchronously* stop another
>thread.  That's why I thought I probably needed something more
>elaborate than SIGSTOP, though I'd like to minimize the number of
>system calls required.

When it is stopped, the process state changes to "T" (in ps and /proc).
Note that debugging a program with gdb or ptrace also puts it in the T state.
--
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/