On 07/31, Jürg Billeter wrote: > > > Could you explain your use-case? Why a shell wants to use > > CLONE_NEWPID? > > 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. We already have PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER. 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? > > PR_SET_KILLABLE can be called (e.g., by the shell) between clone() and > execve(). OK, this is true. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
