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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:08:26 -0400 From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org 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 <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote: > Please cc networking patches to netdev@...r.kernel.org. > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> 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 <jlayton@...hat.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists