linux-kernel - Re: Q: wait_task_inactive() and !CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807270948410.3486@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: wait_task_inactive() and !CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG_PREEMPT



On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Without CONFIG_SMP wait_task_inactive() is noop, this doesn't look right.
> Shouldn't we also take CONFIG_PREEMPT into account?

The exit path had _better_ be non-preemptable until it hits the final 
schedule that disables it (and that wait_task_inactive() was waiting for). 
At least that used to be the rule.

Of course, historically the only user for this was just the "wait for 
exit to complete" case. And that isn't really true any more, I guess. So I 
dunno.

		Linus
--
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/