lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Porting vfork()
On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 12:33:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:
> > You could make it a special kind of killable - where you can _only_
> > kill it (ie only fatal signals will be serviced), and that would work.
> > I wouldn't do that until people actually start to complain. It's not a
> > security issue, as the parent _can_ be killed - you just have to kill
> > the child first.
>
> Somebody needs to think about: while(1){vfork();}

Somebody also needs to think about setuid root programs doing:

if (!vfork()) {setreuid(Someone_Else,Someone_Else); /* Stuff */; execve(...);}

While Someone_Else is busy sending SIGSTOPs to all their processes.

I know setuid programs _ought_ to be aware of security issues and
presumably not use vfork() here.

Is this change going to affect any of the existing ones?

-- Jamie

-
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.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.032 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site