linux-kernel - Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704061555170.8738@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@...ricas.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children.

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't really see the point. It's not even *true*. A "process" includes 
> > > more than the shared signal-handling - it would include files and fs etc 
> > > too.
> > > 
> > > So it's actually *more* correct to call it the shared signal state than it 
> > > would be to call it "process" state.
> > 
> > But "signal" has *nothing* to do with what the structure store nowadays, 
> > really. It's a pool of "things" that are not Linux task specific.
> 
> You're ignoring reality. It has more to do with signals than with 
> processes. Look at *all* the fields in the top half of the structure, up 
> to (and including) the "tty" field. They're *all* about signal semantics 
> in one form or another (whether it's directly about shared signal 
> behaviour, or indirectly about *sources* of signals like process control 
> or timers).
> 
> And renaming it really has no upsides, even *if* you had a point, which 
> you don't.

OTOH, the other half of the fields has nothing to do with them (signals). 
Not only, the more time it passes, the more ppl (reason why I posted this 
comment in the beginning) sees the "struct signal_struct" has a boilerplate
where to store shared resources.
Chosing a name like "struct task_shared_ctx" fits it, because "signals" 
are *a* task_shared thing, whereas all the fields on the bottom of the 
"struct signal_struct" (on top of the ones that ppl will want to add 
everytime there's somethign to be shared between task structs) are *not* a 
"signal".



- Davide


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/