Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:00:48 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tegge@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork DoS Message-ID: <20030109210048.GT33821@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200301092037.h09Kbo9v005055@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20030109202346.GS33821@elvis.mu.org> <200301092037.h09Kbo9v005055@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> [030109 12:37] wrote: > Well, the manual page (which may be out of date) infers > that the rfork() only operates on the current process if > RFPROC is not set. If we extend that to include RFTHREAD > then the inference is that either RFPROC or RFTHREAD must be > set and if neither is set an error should be returned. Am > I missing something? That sounds right. The only reason I didn't go that far was because I wasn't sure if we wanted to allow shared sigacts without leadership. I think that it would be safest to require userland to set either RFPROC or RFTHREAD. Yes, the manpage is out of date. What the hell is a sigact anyhow? Can someone please fixup the manpage? :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030109210048.GT33821>