Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:54:32 -0400 | From | Daniel Jacobowitz <> | Subject | Re: [patch] thread-aware coredumps, 2.5.43-C3 |
| |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:29:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 17:40, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > My only problem with this is that you're waiting for all threads by > > SIGKILLing them. If a process vforks or clones, and then the child > > crashes, the parent will receive a SIGKILL - iff we are dumping core. > > That's a change in behavior that seems a bit too arbitrary to me. > > It also has a security impact when you construct a fork/fork/crash > sequence that sends sigkill to the module loader or a kernel thread > during start up that has not yet dropped its association with the user > code.
Why? It's not like userspace couldn't send that SIGKILL on its own, right? If it's still killable it had better be safe to do so.
-- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |