[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: kill -9 <pid of X>
    > 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

    Signals are the uninteresting end of the problem, being root is uninteresting.
    The bigger problems are that X11 is subject to being killed with sig 9
    (which with a horrible kernel hack can be blocked for iopl3 processes)

    Now you need the signal 9 blocking hack because any parent process that
    sits around to catch X failures does _not_ know the exact state of the
    video card.

    The related problems are SAK - which is defined to kill all processes on that
    VT and out of resource kills from the kernel (oom()). SAK is not that big
    a deal - a setuid "sak signal" ioctl akin to the way you take over console
    switching covers it. Oom is trickier.

    > Boy, it's no wonder Linus is grumpy these days.

    Being grumpy and being right are different things.

    I'd agree however - you don't need to put all mode switching code in
    kernel if you allow iopl3 proceses to lock out sig 9 and you provide
    a sak hook. Oom should be solvable its just harder


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.020 / U:1.500 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site