| To: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment() |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 21 May 2002 05:00:11 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | george@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20020520.173416.105610032.davem@redhat.com> from "David S. Miller" at May 20, 2 05:34:16 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > Such rule does not even make this piece of code legal. Consider: > > task1:cpu0: x = counters[smp_processor_id()]; > cpu0: PREEMPT > task2:cpu0: x = counters[smp_processor_id()]; > task2:cpu0: counters[smp_processor_id()] = x + 1; > cpu0: PREEMPT > task1:cpu0: counters[smp_processor_id()] = x + 1; > full garbage Yup. And this has nothing to do with SMP... > But it does bring up important point, preemption people need to > fully audit entire networking. Well, we can make this. It is too serious. Anyway, this means that preemptive patch for 2.4 is "tainting" :-) Alexey |
| Previous by Date: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment(), Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment(), Nivedita Singhvi |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment(), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment(), Nivedita Singhvi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |