On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 19:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > i dont like those semantics either - will verify whether thread-specific
> > exec() works via a helper thread (or vfork) - it really should.
>
> As long as it works with something sane (and vfork() is sane), I'm happy
> with the posix behaviour by default. After all, the execve() really _does_
> need to "de-thread" anyway, and if we need to make that explicit (with the
> vfork()) then that's fine.
An execve can be setuid code so it really represents a whole new
security domain. Thats why the thread signal protection refuses to let
strange child exit signals cross it.
There is code that depends on clone()/exec() not killing other threads
in the group - some threaded web servers for example.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:39 EST