On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:34:09AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
Clearly, unbreaking applications like Diablo by default is desirable. At
least OpenBSD has similar protections to these turned on by default, and
possibly other systems as well. As 5.x sees more broad use, we may well
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:34:09AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
Clearly, unbreaking applications like Diablo by default is desirable. At
least OpenBSD has similar protections to these turned on by default, and
possibly other systems as
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:23:35 -0400 (EDT), Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The only way to close this sort of race is to have a notion of a
unique process identifier that lasts beyond the lifetime of the
process itself -- i.e., the ability to return EMYSINCERESTREGRESTS
if you try to
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
Could you confim this happens with 4.8? The access control checks there
are substantially different, and I wouldn't expect the behavior you're
seeing on 4.8...
Rather difficult. I'll see if the client will let me trash a production
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
I've got a weirdness with kill(2).
This code is out of Diablo, the news package, and has been working fine for
some years. It apparently works fine on other OS's.
In the Diablo model, the parent process may choose to tell its children to
update status
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
I've got a weirdness with kill(2).
This code is out of Diablo, the news package, and has been working fine for
some years. It apparently works fine on other OS's.
In the Diablo model, the parent process may choose to tell its children to
update
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
The specific OS below is 5.1-RELEASE but apparently this happens on 4.8
as well.
Could you confim this happens with 4.8? The access control checks there
are substantially different, and I wouldn't expect the behavior you're
seeing on 4.8...
...
Well,
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
The specific OS below is 5.1-RELEASE but apparently this happens on 4.8
as well.
Could you confim this happens with 4.8? The access control checks there
are substantially different, and I wouldn't expect the behavior you're
seeing on 4.8...
Rather
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
The specific OS below is 5.1-RELEASE but apparently this happens on 4.8
as well.
Could you confim this happens with 4.8? The access control checks there
are substantially different, and I wouldn't expect
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Greco wrote:
The specific OS below is 5.1-RELEASE but apparently this happens on 4.8
as well.
Could you confim this happens with 4.8? The access control checks there
are substantially different, and I wouldn't
I've got a weirdness with kill(2).
This code is out of Diablo, the news package, and has been working fine for
some years. It apparently works fine on other OS's.
In the Diablo model, the parent process may choose to tell its children to
update status via a signal. The loop basically consists
11 matches
Mail list logo
