Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:09:45 -0600 | From | yodaiken@fsmlabs ... | Subject | Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on |
| |
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 05:25:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In article <20000827051241.A24890@hq.fsmlabs.com>, > <yodaiken@fsmlabs.com> wrote: > > > >POSIX says nothing, as far as I can tell, about the effect of exec on > >threads. However, it does say pending signals must be inherited. It's > >unclear what should happen in Linux, but it might be good for the new > >process to still be a thread in the thread group -- although it won't > >be sharing memory anymore. > > No. Simply for security purposes we _definitely_ need to "de-thread" the > process when it does an exec. Otherwise we have "interesting" issues > with suid execs that are part of a non-suid thread group.
I came to the same conclusion, but ..
> Note that for _pthreads_ this kind of exec is illegal anyway. Silly > POSIX threads standard had to take user-level threading models into > account, so under POSIX threads an execve() needs to kill off all other > threads.
Does it? I looked in the spec, but didn't see it. That's stupid -- and note similarly that it is easy for Linux fork to conform to POSIX spec that the forked (new) process has no threads.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |