From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 21 7:15:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from janus.syracuse.net (janus.syracuse.net [205.232.47.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7653F10EB8 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:15:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from green@unixhelp.org) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by janus.syracuse.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA06982; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:15:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:15:48 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman X-Sender: green@janus.syracuse.net To: Bruce Evans Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: one SysV bug/fix, how many more In-Reply-To: <199902211135.WAA02068@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: > >parts of proc (p_vmspace etc.) For that matter, does any of kern_exit.c:exit1() > >need to be spl()d? It sure seems like it to me. Along with other parts of > >kern_exit.c, and many other things having to do with refcnt's. Is it just my > >paranoia, or have I got this spl concept correct? > > spl is for blocking interrupts. Process-related things shouldn't be and > mostly aren't touched by interrupts. > > Bruce > But without an spl, couldn't multiple processes do Very Bad Things in a partially shared proc context? Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___ green@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message