linux-kernel - uml: pthreads instead of manual clone()?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4BCB464A.702@web.de>
Date:	Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:50:02 +0200
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
To:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
CC:	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: uml: pthreads instead of manual clone()?

Hi Jeff,

is there (still) any reason to use explicit clone() instead of pthreads
to spawn UML kernel threads?

While playing with a patch to finally move os_nsecs to proper
CLOCK_MONOTONIC, I noticed some subtle side-effect: We need to link
against librt for clock_gettime, but that indirectly drags in
libpthread. Now gdb gets unhappy when you try to debug the UML kernel.
It assumes that pthreads are used, but fails to find their IDs and
terminates the session. So the obvious approach appears to be converting
kernel threads to pthreads - if there aren't any know pitfalls.

Jan

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)