Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than

From: Marc Lehmann (pcg@goof.com)
Date: Mon Aug 28 2000 - 10:10:30 EST


On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 07:34:00AM -0600, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > There are large security considerations. A process must be KILL and
> > STOPable, no matter wether it uses threads or not. every other semantics
> > would be a security nightmare (or make threads a root-only interface).
>
> That's why pthreads as a special library or executable type seems best.

Just that that sounds very fragile ;) setuid-libraries... well...

> 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.

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg@opengroup.org |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |
-
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