From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Simon Holm Thøgersen" <odie@cs.aau.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>,
Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@twistedmatrix.com>
Subject: Re: Allow signaling a process by all its thread ids?
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:54:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090521235428.53b71862@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1242944179.10298.11.camel@odie.local>
> It may be that POSIX is weakly worded enough that either allowing or
> disallowing this behavior is valid. I think that allowing it is a
> violation of POSIX, but I can find no single, explicit, direct statement
> in POSIX to back this up.
If there was a specific explicit statement it might be an argument to add
a separate poxix_kill(), but the existing kill(2) interface the kernel
has is API, its been that way forever and you need *very* strong reasons
to make such changes that might break things.
You need to show that
- The current API breaks stuff
- The current API is absolutely invalid in posix
- Changing it improves the functionality and power of the kernel
- Changing it doesn't break existing applications
> There is at least one other argument to disallow this behavior even if
> it is not technically illegal. Consider the traditional, widespread
> convention of pid files. This behavior drastically reduces their
> utility, as it greatly increases the chance of PID collisions, a case in
> which it is difficult to automatically (that is, without human
> intervention) recognize that a pid file no longer corresponds to a
> running process which created it. This is the case in which I
> encountered the behavior - when it repeatedly caused services not to
> restart because they encountered a thread of another process and
> misinterpreted it to mean the service was already running.
Either your pid files are secure, or they are not. If collisions can
occur by accident I can cause them deliberately. If I can cause them
deliberately your system is insecure and you need to fix it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-21 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-21 22:16 Simon Holm Thøgersen
2009-05-21 22:54 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2009-05-21 23:11 ` Chris Friesen
2009-05-21 22:57 ` Chris Friesen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090521235428.53b71862@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=exarkun@twistedmatrix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@googlemail.com \
--cc=odie@cs.aau.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®