[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:40:51 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/vdso/32: Add AT_SYSINFO cancellation
helpers
* Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> [2016-03-09 12:34:50 +0100]:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> [2016-03-09 09:56:31 +0100]:
> > Why is so much complexity added to avoid a ~3 instructions window where
> > calcellation is tested? Cancellation at work atom boundaries is a fundamentally
> > 'polling' model anyway, and signal delivery is asynchronous, with a fundamental
> > IPI delay if it's cross-CPU.
> >
>
> to avoid the race when the thread is cancelled after the test but before
> the syscall see http://ewontfix.com/16/
>
wrong link
http://ewontfix.com/2/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
