[ Dropping port-arm26 since this is irrelevant to them ]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:53:00PM +0000, Ben Harris wrote:
> > I still don't see why this is necessary.  Is it expected that future ARMs
> > will define new instructions that will take the SWI trap, or something?  
> > Even if they do, the worst that will happen is that the new instructions
> > will cause the process to loop rather than catching a SIGILL, and I hardly
> > think that's an immediate cause for concern.
> 
> Interuptable loop? Else it makes for nice denial of service attacks.

Yes, interruptible.  The code in question drops back through userret(), so
signals will be handled properly.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>