David Laight writes:
> From: Daniel Colascione
>> Sent: 31 October 2018 19:33
> ...
>> You can't do it today with kill. The idea that keeping a open file
>> descriptor to a /proc/pid or a file within it prevents PID reuse is
>> widespread, but incorrect.
>
> Is there a real good reason why that
David Laight writes:
> From: Daniel Colascione
>> Sent: 31 October 2018 19:33
> ...
>> You can't do it today with kill. The idea that keeping a open file
>> descriptor to a /proc/pid or a file within it prevents PID reuse is
>> widespread, but incorrect.
>
> Is there a real good reason why that
From: Daniel Colascione
> Sent: 31 October 2018 19:33
...
> You can't do it today with kill. The idea that keeping a open file
> descriptor to a /proc/pid or a file within it prevents PID reuse is
> widespread, but incorrect.
Is there a real good reason why that shouldn't be the case?
ie Holding
From: Daniel Colascione
> Sent: 31 October 2018 19:33
...
> You can't do it today with kill. The idea that keeping a open file
> descriptor to a /proc/pid or a file within it prevents PID reuse is
> widespread, but incorrect.
Is there a real good reason why that shouldn't be the case?
ie Holding
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:33:06PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:00:49PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >> > Why not just use an ioctl() like
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:33:06PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:00:49PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >> > Why not just use an ioctl() like
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:00:49PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>> > Why not just use an ioctl() like Jann suggested instead of this big
>> > security check? Then we avoid the
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:00:49PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>> > Why not just use an ioctl() like Jann suggested instead of this big
>> > security check? Then we avoid the
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:00:49PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Why not just use an ioctl() like Jann suggested instead of this big
> > security check? Then we avoid the whole setuid writer thing entirely,
>
> Don't you think a
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 06:00:49PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Why not just use an ioctl() like Jann suggested instead of this big
> > security check? Then we avoid the whole setuid writer thing entirely,
>
> Don't you think a
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Why not just use an ioctl() like Jann suggested instead of this big
> security check? Then we avoid the whole setuid writer thing entirely,
Don't you think a system call would be better than a new ioctl? With
either an ioctl or a new
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Why not just use an ioctl() like Jann suggested instead of this big
> security check? Then we avoid the whole setuid writer thing entirely,
Don't you think a system call would be better than a new ioctl? With
either an ioctl or a new
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:59:12PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> Add a simple proc-based kill interface. To use /proc/pid/kill, just
> write the signal number in base-10 ASCII to the kill file of the
> process to be killed: for example, 'echo 9 > /proc/$$/kill'.
>
> Semantically,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:59:12PM +, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> Add a simple proc-based kill interface. To use /proc/pid/kill, just
> write the signal number in base-10 ASCII to the kill file of the
> process to be killed: for example, 'echo 9 > /proc/$$/kill'.
>
> Semantically,
14 matches
Mail list logo
