Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:34:24 -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.4.05.9902211033260.6954-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <199902211530.CAA15265@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> spl is for blocking interrupts. Process-related things shouldn't be and > >> mostly aren't touched by interrupts. > > >But without an spl, couldn't multiple processes do Very Bad Things in a > >partially shared proc context? > > They can do that with or without an spl if they don't lock things properly > spl can give improper giant locking as a side effect, but it doesn't > necessarily prevent other processes running, since tsleep() isn't locked > by spls. Okay, so we'd need a true mutex, not spl. Do you not agree that there are some pretty glaring races in code that assumes that vmspace, signals, etc. aren't shared? > > Bruce > 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.4.05.9902211033260.6954-100000>