lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kill -9 <pid of X>
Huh? The point is that root _should_ be able to send 'kill -9' to init if
he/she really wants to. Granted, it's not something you want to do, but
neither is 'killall -9 X'. The kernel shouldn't protect against root doing
stupid stuff that can hose the system, there are just so many ways. What
you might want to do, if you're fearful that you might do something like
that, is for bash and killall, have them protect against a 'kill -9 1' or
a 'killall -9 init'. Maybe have a flag for killall, '-f' sounds familar...
-Rob H.

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Perry Harrington wrote:

> > I missed that message along the line... For pure cleanliness, I think that
> > 'kill -9 1' should be blocked in userspace tools. It does make much more
> > sense there.
>
> Kill and sigsend and other varieties are system calls. You would be naive to
> trying blocking it in libc -- libc is not capable of defending against such things.
>
> You could statically link a "rogue" program to 'kill -9 1' or you could simply
> write the ASM code neccessary to call the syscall.


-
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.088 / U:1.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site