On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 09:14:19AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 10:37:04AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:07:13PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Audit/Cleanup of kernel_thread calls, specifically checking of return codes.
> > > Problems seemed to fall into 3 main categories:
> > >
> > > 1) callers of kernel_thread were inconsistent about meaning of a zero return
> > > code. Some callers considered a zero return code to mean success, others took
> > > it to mean failure. a zero return code, while not actually possible in the
> > > current implementation, should be considered a success (pid 0 is/should be
> > > valid). fixed all callers to treat zero return as success
> > >
> > > 2) caller of kernel_thread saved return code of kernel_thread for later use
> > > without ever checking its value. Callers who did this tended to assume a
> > > non-zero return was success, and would often wait for a completion queue to be
> > > woken up, implying that an error (negative return code) from kernel_thread could
> > > lead to deadlock. Repaired by checking return code at call time, and setting
> > > saved return code to zero in the event of an error.
> >
> > This is inconsistent with your assertion that pid 0 "is/should be valid"
> > above. If you want '0' to mean "not valid" then it's not a valid return
> > value from kernel_thread() (and arguably that's true, since pid 0 is
> > permanently allocated to the idle thread.)
> >
> No its, not, but I can see how my comments might be ambiguous. I want zero to be
> a valid return code, since we never actually return zero, but we certainly could
> if we wanted to. Note that kernel_thread returns an int (not an unsigned int),
> and as such assuming that a non-zero return code implies success ignores the
> fact that kernel_thread can return a negative value, which indicates failure.
> This is what I found, and what my patch fixes.
>
> > I don't particularly care whether you decide to that returning pid 0 from
> > kernel_thread is valid or not, just that your two points above are at least
> > consistent with each other.
> >
> My comments in (2) should be made more clear by changing "assume a non-zero
> return was success" to "assume a negative return was success". This is what my
> patch fixes.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Neil
>
P.S. - Sorry, Russell, et al. for the double post. My network link went out and I accendentally
sent two replies to your note
Neil
> > --
> > Russell King
> > Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
> > maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
