Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:30:28 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: crash

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:20:43PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> (BTW, what will set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) do
> with the whole kernel in case SECOND retry will be successeful?
> Shouldn't there be set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) somewhere
> too?)

No, it's OK.  The call to schedule_timeout() will take care of that:

 * You can set the task state as follows -
 *
 * %TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE - at least @timeout jiffies are guaranteed to
 * pass before the routine returns. The routine will return 0
 *
 * %TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE - the routine may return early if a signal is
 * delivered to the current task. In this case the remaining time
 * in jiffies will be returned, or 0 if the timer expired in time
 *
 * The current task state is guaranteed to be TASK_RUNNING when this 
 * routine returns.

> >Thank you for pointing out the problem with this and also for sharing
> >your approach to replacing kernels with owl-users.
> 
> Heh.  I think the approach is quite logical thing to do...

Indeed.

> At least I was doing it that way for ages, and it saved
> me numerous times in the past from all sorts of various
> mistakes i'm doing all the time... ;)

I've been using "lilo -R" a lot too, but not the reboot on panic.

> Ok.  I think the attached 3-liner should do the trick,

Yes.  I've re-done it slightly differently, though, to better preserve
the unpatched kernel's behavior when all 10 retries fail.

Thanks again,

-- 
/sd

Hosted by DataForce ISP - Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux