[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] prctl: add PR_[GS]ET_KILLABLE
On 07/31, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > Could you explain your use-case? Why a shell wants to use
> To guarantee that there won't be any runaway processes, i.e., ensure
> that no descendants (background helper daemons or misbehaving
> processes) survive when the child process is terminated.


Perhaps we can finally add PR_KILL_MY_DESCENDANTS_ON_EXIT? This was already
discussed some time ago, but I can't find the previous discussion... Simple
to implement.

> And to prevent
> children from killing their ancestors.

OK, this is the only reason for CLONE_NEWPID which I can understand so far.
Not that I understand why this is that useful ;)

> > > * As SIGSTOP is ignored when raised from the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE process
> > > itself, it's not possible to implement the stop action in a custom
> > > SIGTSTP handler.
> >
> > Yes. So may be we actually want to change __isig() paths to use
> > SEND_SIG_FORCED (this is not that simple), or perhaps we can change
> > __send_signal() to not drop SIGSTOP sent to itself, or may be we can even
> > introduce SIG_DFL_EVEN_IF_INIT, I dunno.
> In my opinion, my patch is much simpler and also more general as it

Yes, yes, let me repeat that I am not arguing with your patch, I am just trying
to understand what

> > I can't understand this. An application should be changed anyway to do
> PR_SET_KILLABLE can be called (e.g., by the shell) between clone() and
> execve().

OK, this is true.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-01 16:20    [W:0.077 / U:11.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site