[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110817165350.4bd3a2a9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:53:50 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lennart@...ttering.net,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org, roland@...k.frob.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: +
 prctl-add-pr_setget_child_reaper-to-allow-simple-process-supervision .patch
 added to -mm tree
O> This is not meant as a security feature, if that's what your asking.
> It will not prevent services from doing nasty things and escape the
> process that started them. But it's still a feature that today only
> PID 1 and which we need for more processes.
I'm more worried about it beign a security flaw...
> > IOW, imho this doesn't look very useful "in general" to me.
> 
> It is very useful if you have an init-like daemon.
Which is a special case
> 
> > May be we need something else instead... And iiuc you don't really
> > need to change the reparenting, you only want the notification if
> > the process exits.
> 
> No, we want to be the parent of the process, and we want to be the one
> who reaps all the child process, not only receive some out-of-band
> notifications. The sub-init is the babysitter of all the things it has
> started, and that should be reflected in the parent child relation.
Why ?
--
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