Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again)
Daniel Jacobowitz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 02:10:41 -0500
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:07:37PM -0800, george anzinger wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:57:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > I just pushed my version of the system call restart code to the BK trees.
> > > It's losely based on Georges code, but subtly different. Also, I didn't
> > > actually update any actual system calls to use it, I just did the
> > > infrastructure.
> > >
> > > Non-x86 architectures need to be updated to work with this: they need to
> > > update their thread structures, the additional do_signal() support in
> > > their signal.c, and add the actual system call itself somewhere. For x86,
> > > this was about 15 lines of changes.
> > >
> > > The basic premise is very simple: if you want to restart a system call,
> > > you can do
> > >
> > > restart = ¤t_thread()->restart_block;
> > > restart->fn = my_continuation_function;
> > > restart->arg0 = my_arg0_for_continuation;
> > > restart->arg1 = my_arg1_for_continuation;
> > > ..
> > > return -ERESTARTSYS_RESTARTBLOCK;
> > >
> > > which will cause the system call to either return -EINTR (if a signal
> > > handler was actually invoced) or for "benign" signals (SIGSTOP etc) it
> > > will end up restarting the system call at the continuation function (with
> > > the "restart" block as the argument).
> > >
> > > We could extend this to allow restarting even over signal handlers, but
> > > that would have some re-entrancy issues (ie what happens if a signal
> > > handler itself wants to use a system call that may want restarting), so at
> > > least for now restarting is only done when no handler is invoced (*).
> > >
> > > Linus
> > >
> > > (*) The nesting case is by no means impossible to handle gracefully
> > > (adding a "restart even if handler is called" error number and returning
> > > -EINTR if nesting, for example), but I don't know of any system calls that
> > > would really want to try to restart anyway, so..
> > Well, here's something to consider. This isn't entirely hypothetical;
> > there are test cases in GDB's regression suite that cover nearly this.
> > Suppose a process is sleeping for an hour. The user wants to see what
> > another thread is doing, so he hits Control-C; the thread which happens
> > to be reported as 'current' is the one that was in nanosleep(). It
> > used to be that when he said continue, the nanosleep would return; now
> > hopefully it'll continue. Great! But this damnable user isn't done
> > yet. He wants to look at one of his data structures. He calls a
> > debugging print_foo() function from GDB. He realizes he left a
> > sleep-for-a-minute nanosleep call in it and C-c's again. Now we have
> > two interrupted nanosleep calls and the application will never see a
> > signal to interrupt either of them; he says "continue" twice and
> > expects to get back to his hour-long sleep.
> > Note that I'm not saying we _need_ to support this, mind :) It's a
> > little pathological.
> I seem to recall working on a debugger in the distant past
> and put a lock in it that did not allow it to run a debuggee
> function while the debugee was in a system call. It seems
> to me that is is begging for problems and is not that hard
> for gdb/etc to prevent.
> Daniel, what to you think?
I really don't see the point. I like being able to call functions
while stopped in read() or poll(); you can hit C-c and go off to
examine your application. That's as much "in a syscall" as this is.
Besides, implementing this is more of a pain than it's worth.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/