lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 6 Apr 1996 11:45:21 +0100 (MET)
FromMichael De La Rue <>
SubjectRe: ext2 attribute immutable
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

> No. PID 1 is still busy after you kill init (ignoring the fact that you
> just can't kill -9 1, the kernel catches that) since init becomes a zombie
> (nobody waits for it).
>

couldn't you do (after having crashed init)

kill_everybody_else(TM); /* so they don't come and grab our free
slot */
go_to_last_pid();
waitpid(1,NULL,WNOHANG); /* get zombie init's status to get rid of
it*/
fork()....
'cos you're root so you should be able to wait for pid 1? Then you have
pid1 and root so you can change the securelevel as you wish.

Or am I confused?

Other low pids may not be security sensitive resources, but as long as
PID 1 has special powers, it is.. Which leads to the question why dosen't
the kernel look after PID 1 more carefully?

<http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~mikedlr/biography.html>
Scottish Climbing Archive: <http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~mikedlr/climbing/>
Linux/Unix clone@ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/packages/linux/sunsite.unc-mirror/docs/



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2010