linux-kernel - Re: [path][rfc] add PR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:26:22 +0400
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
To:	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>
CC:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [path][rfc] add PR_DETACH prctl command

08.04.2011 22:13, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> I can't comment on the patch itself, but, if your application knows it
> might have to daemonize after spinning up threads, why not simply
> fork() immediately on startup, and have the parent simply wait forever
> for either the child to die or for a daemonize signal from the child?
> If done early enough it shouldn't tie up too much memory, and it
> wouldn't require any of these invasive kernel changes. As an added
> bonus, it's portable to all unixen :)
Yes, thats almost always true. Except when you deal with
the vendor-provided poorly-coded drivers and libs, where
you get the drivers initialized only via the lib. And the
initialization process must be finished before the boot-up
can continue, but that's not the whole story: only the
process that initialized that lib, can then work with it.
And of course that lib creates a dozen of threads...
OK, you've got the idea. :)
But anyway. Yes, not everyone have to deal with such a
nightmare, this is very rare. But people being confused
by the fact that daemon() silently loses threads, are not
rare. So I just wonder: even if the workaround is simple,
why searching for the workaround at all? If you need
2 syscalls to detach from parent, and you loose the threads
in a process, then why not to have a single call, that
detaches without loosing threads?
But in any case, I am mostly inclinced to leave that patch
for my project only.
--
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/