Re: emulating no-senders notifications in L4?

[Ondrej Hurt]

> > The application has the right to trash itself but it should not harm
> > the rest of the system. In the case of unreliable fault detection, it
> > is not only the app who will suffer because it can lock resources in
> > other apps, it can hold references to misc stuff forbiding its
> > deletion (leaving it 'busy'), it consumes task slot etc.


> > BUT - I realized that the possibility of exception handler making
> > another exception making another exception making another exception
> > ...... is standard in UNIX and we must do it the same way :-/



I supposed that this exception looping is standard (POSIX).

I ran the following code on Linux and the Hurd:

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>

int nsig=0;

void handler(int x)
{
        nsig++;
        printf("%i ", nsig); fflush(0);
        *((int*)0) = 0xabcdef;
        printf("end of handler");
}

int main()
{
        signal(SIGSEGV, handler);
        *((int*)0) = 0xabcdef;
        return 0;
}

In Linux, it wrote out all numbers from 1 to 36147, followed by a
"Segmentation fault" message and then the process stopped. There
seems to be some limit.

In the Hurd, only the number "1" was written and that was all. The
process was not stopped (maybe it would after some time, dunno).

And I suppose that this would happen on L4:

1) you set up an exception handler
2) some thread causes exception which is IPCed to the handler
3) the handler thread receives the IPC
4) the handler causes some exception (not pg fault) itself
5) exception is IPCed to the handler again ... but it will not
receive it because it is already being blocked by this exception

So the desired(?) "exception looping" will not take place, unless you
set another thread as exception handler at the beginning of the
original exception handler. Or am I missing something as usual ? :)



> Not only that, but exceptions are only one way that a process could
> get stuck in a loop.  Fixing them is pointless unless you're gonna fix
> the rest.  And the only way to "fix" a general loop is to put a limit
> on the process's lifespan.
>
> --
> Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus


Why would be fixing of only one part of all possible ill behaviours
pointless ?



______________________________________________________________________
Seznam Prace - Hledate praci nebo menite zamestnani? http://prace.seznam.cz