On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 05:10:30PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 07:34:00AM -0600, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > Otherwise, there seems room in the POSIX spec to wriggle out of the STOP
> > requirement.
>
> That might be the case, but my concern is not POSIX but security, an
> orthogonal concept. Lax handling of STOP is a big security problem, even
> with the process-only model (see the many programs that suffice to survive
> KILL or SOTP for some time), and with threads it only gets easier.
You can't rely on signals timing anyway -- that is quite clear in the
spec and in the implementation. Especially on a SMP machine, STOP has
weak semantics and I don't see how to imrove it.
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:21 EST