However, both sysvinit's and BusyBox's kilall5 make a kill(-1,
SIGSTOP) call before going through the PID list and selectively
sending the requested signal (and I guess Linux does not deliver
SIGSTOP to the process that contains the call, or it would be
pointless), and make a kill(-1, SIGCONT) cal
El sáb., 4 may. 2019 a las 22:55, sysinit escribió:
>
> > pkill(1), killall(1) and killall5(8) all retrieve a process list and
> > kill them one by one, instead of calling kill(-1, signal), so a race
> > condition can happen thats let some process escape the final SIGKILL.
>
> interesting. i have n
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:55:51AM +0200, sysi...@yandex.com wrote:
> since they do more work to select processes and hence need more time
> when iterating the PID dirs in the procfs? though i doubt they use
> any matching at all when tasked with killing all processes and
> probably behave like th
> pkill(1), killall(1) and killall5(8) all retrieve a process list and
> kill them one by one, instead of calling kill(-1, signal), so a race
> condition can happen thats let some process escape the final SIGKILL.
interesting. i have not considered this at all.
looks like kill( -1, sig ) from pr
