Alexander Nyberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> + /* We're taking recursive faults here in do_exit. Safest
> + * is to just leave this task alone and wait for reboot. */
I find this comment-block style a bit hard to maintain, and am anal about
consistency.
> + if (unlikely(tsk->flags & PF_EXITING)) {
> + printk(KERN_ALERT "\nFixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!\n");
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + schedule();
> + }
> +
In the printk string, a \n will terminate the current facility level, so
your KERN_ALERT there is a no-op. I simply removed it, which might cause
messy output sometimes but that seems better than always adding a newline.
--- 25/kernel/exit.c~avoid-recursive-oopses 2005-05-06 18:03:45.000000000 -0700
+++ 25-akpm/kernel/exit.c 2005-05-06 18:06:01.000000000 -0700
@@ -795,6 +795,17 @@ fastcall NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long co
ptrace_notify((PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT << 8) | SIGTRAP);
}
+ /*
+ * We're taking recursive faults here in do_exit. Safest is to just
+ * leave this task alone and wait for reboot.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(tsk->flags & PF_EXITING)) {
+ printk(KERN_ALERT
+ "Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!\n");
+ set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule();
+ }
+
tsk->flags |= PF_EXITING;
/*
_
-
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]
