[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: kill -9 <pid of X>

    Alan Cox writes:

    > 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)

    Is that so horrible? If X is going to bang hardware like kernel code,
    it may as well act like kernel code.

    > 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.

    Yes, as long as X won't let a user remap SAK.

    > 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

    Oom is easy: mlockall()

    If X is going to play with hardware, then mlockall() is simply the
    correct solution. X already disables interrupts sometimes. X can use
    DMA too then, though a system call to get physical addresses would help.

    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:0.025 / U:7.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site