Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:14:39 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: kill -9 <pid of X> | From | (Kragen) |
| |
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Jon M. Taylor wrote: > On 12 Aug 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So "that's not the kernel's job" is correct. > > I stand by my claim. If userspace cannot, by its nature, properly > guarantee the atomicity of those critical sections, video card programming > cannot be done properly in userspace. Thus, it *is* the kernel's job.
Remember, we're talking about defending against signals from a hostile root who wants to crash the video card. In this scenario, not even the kernel can do it -- root can install a kernel module which overwrites the CLI instruction in the "atomic" code with a NOP. It's a little more work than "killall -9 XF86_SVGA".
> Sorry> trusting the X server, you convinced me of that. I will NOT buy the X > server being unable to handle signal 9 correctly.
Boy, it's no wonder Linus is grumpy these days.
Kragen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |