lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Porting vfork()
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Kenneth Albanowski wrote:
> > >
> > > No need to. If you use sleep_on(), the parent won't be getting any signals
> > > anyway (only sleep_on_interruptible() cares about signals).
> >
> > Of course, but is that a good thing? The parent will be unkillable until
> > the child does something.
>
> Yes. That's basically how vfork() works.
>
> 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.
>
> Linus
>
> -
> 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/

You mean you just have to kill _all_ the children, and their
children _in order_. This seems like a big security hazard to
me.... Vfork bombs could become quite difficult to stop.... e.g.
while(vfork());
you'd have to start killing at the high end (pid-wise), but the
processes are _created_ at the high end, so you would fail.

--
This message has been brought to you by the letter alpha and the
number pi.

David Feuer
dfeuer@his.com
dfeuer@binx.mbhs.edu
Open Source: Think locally; act globally.

-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans