Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:02:59 -0400 (EDT) | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | | Subject | Re: 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
|  |