On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 09:35:24PM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote: > >> [ Side note : panicking when process 1 exits is a *very* silly thing > >> for the kernel to do. Process 1 exiting, instead of being forbidden, > >> should mean the end of the machine's life cycle, and the kernel should > >> either halt, reboot, or even kexec something else, depending on process > >> 1's exit code. But that is totally off-topic. ] > > > > I suspect there might be ugly race conditions in this case (in the > > window between process 1 ceasing to exist and the system shutting > > down or doing whatever) > > Race conditions ? The semantics I'm suggesting are perfectly clear and > atomic. Process 1 exits -> the kernel reads its exit code and performs > a reboot(), poweroff() or kexec() system call, *at once*.
What about SMP? I agree it's possible that there's no issue, but it's also possible that there would be issues, and it's a sufficiently ugly situation that I'd rather we not have to think about whether it's safe/secure by just not creating it. :) Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
