Re: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for child processes
From: Lennart Poettering
Date: Fri Mar 05 2010 - 19:20:41 EST
On Thu, 04.03.10 14:14, Roland McGrath (roland@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> There are a few different aspects of behavior change to think about.
> 1. Who can get a SIGCHLD and wait result they weren't expecting.
> 2. Who sees some PID for getppid() when they are expecting 1.
> 3. What ps shows.
> When I start thinking through what might be security issues, they are
> almost all #1 questions. There is a hairy nest of many variations of #1
> questions. The #2 question is pretty simple, but it also could be an issue
> for security when setuid is involved (or just correctness for any
> My impression is that #3 is the only actual motivation for this feature.
> So perhaps we should consider an approach that leaves the rest of the
> semantics alone and only affects that.
> Lennart, am I right that this is all you are looking for? Does it even
> matter to you that this change the PPID that ps groks today? How about if
> it's just an entirely new kind of assocation that ps et al can learn to
> display, and not even the traditional PPID field changes?
Uh, no. Actually it's the fact that my sub-init gets the SIGCHLD, which
I am looking for. The clean ps tree is just a side-effect.
When the sub-init gets the SIGCHLD for its "grandchildren" then we can
supervise double-forking daemons, and properly handle daemons that die
due to SIGSEGV and suchlike.
So what I am after is the SIGCHLD for the grandparents, the clean ps
tree is kinda boring.
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/