Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [patch] thread-exec-2.5.34-B1, BK-curr | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 16 Sep 2002 02:37:56 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 19:38, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > i dont like those semantics either - will verify whether thread-specific > > exec() works via a helper thread (or vfork) - it really should. > > As long as it works with something sane (and vfork() is sane), I'm happy > with the posix behaviour by default. After all, the execve() really _does_ > need to "de-thread" anyway, and if we need to make that explicit (with the > vfork()) then that's fine.
An execve can be setuid code so it really represents a whole new security domain. Thats why the thread signal protection refuses to let strange child exit signals cross it.
There is code that depends on clone()/exec() not killing other threads in the group - some threaded web servers for example.
- 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/
|  |