From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 21 7:34:33 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 7B94610E01 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:34:28 -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 KAA11592; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:34:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:34:24 -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: <199902211530.CAA15265@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 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