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]

Message-ID: <49370.71.139.37.220.1214099737.squirrel@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"Eric Smith" <eric@...uhaha.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Any lightweight way for one thread to force another thread to  
     suspend execution?

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.

Thanks!
Eric Smith

--
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/