Roman,
> I have an idea what might have happened. You don't advance the pending
> state, if the signal isn't queued, so that the pending state is screwed up
> afterwards. Although I don't see how it could crash the kernel (it has
> only the potential to mess up the timer queue via hrtimer_forward() a
> bit), but I don't know what other patches were applied.
Good catch, but I dont see how it would trigger the bug.
> For example no current user restarts an active timer, which could be used
> to simplify the locking.
How does this simplify the locking ? It just removes the
hrtimer_cancel() call in hrtimer_start() and makes the
switch_hrtimer_base() code a bit simpler.
The general locking rules would be still the same and I dont see
increased flexibility at all.
> If we tightened a bit what a user is allowed to
> do, we could gain flexibility on the other side, e.g. allow drivers to
> create timer sources or how to integrate cpu timer.
-ENOPARSE. Can you please explain what "allow drivers to create timer
sources" means and why the above locking is in the way ?
tglx
-
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]
