Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:15:48 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: one SysV bug/fix, how many more Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902211015050.6954-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <199902211135.WAA02068@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9902211015050.6954-100000>