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  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:	Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:08:26 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <>
To:	Herbert Xu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: have tcp_recvmsg() check kthread_should_stop() and
 treat it as if it were signalled

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:30:04 +1000
Herbert Xu <> wrote:

> Please cc networking patches to
> Jeff Layton <> 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?

The problem there is that we still have to make the kthread let signals
through. The nice thing about this approach is that we can make the
kthread ignore signals, but still allow it to break out of kernel_recvmsg
when a kthread_stop is done.

Though I will confess that you have a point about this feeling like a
layering violation...

Jeff Layton <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists