| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jack Steiner <steiner@...ricas.sgi.com>, acahalan@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes. > Does a parent death signal make most sense between separately written programs? I don't think it does. It has always seemed an utterly cockamamy feature to me, and I've never understood what actually motivated it. > Does a parent death signal make most sense between processes that are part of > a larger program. That is the only way I can really see it being used. The only actual example of use I know is what Albert Cahalan reported. To my mind, the only semantics that matter for pdeath_signal are what previous uses expected in the past and still need for compatibility. If we started with a fresh rationale from the ground up on what the feature is good for, I am rather skeptical it would pass muster to be added today. Thanks, Roland - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists