Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:04:36 -0400 | From | Daniel Jacobowitz <> | Subject | Re: [patch] thread-aware coredumps, 2.5.43-C3 |
| |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 15:54, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:29:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 17:40, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > My only problem with this is that you're waiting for all threads by > > > > SIGKILLing them. If a process vforks or clones, and then the child > > > > crashes, the parent will receive a SIGKILL - iff we are dumping core. > > > > That's a change in behavior that seems a bit too arbitrary to me. > > > > > > It also has a security impact when you construct a fork/fork/crash > > > sequence that sends sigkill to the module loader or a kernel thread > > > during start up that has not yet dropped its association with the user > > > code. > > > > Why? It's not like userspace couldn't send that SIGKILL on its own, > > right? If it's still killable it had better be safe to do so. > > The kernel side isnt, the signal handling isnt always "normal". Its the > extreme case of the problem not the general one. Fixing the vfork/clone > crash is doable, and one approach would be to solve the problem by > saying "if you claim to be a thread group with the new style flags you > get to be killed as a group and dumped as a group", with old stuff > behaving like it always did before.
Which is what I'm trying to avoid... most of the world isn't using CLONE_THREAD yet.
-- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |