From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 16 14:49:19 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6697E16A4CE; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 55EAB43D80; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:49:00 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA04973;
	Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:48:58 +1100
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:48:57 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040116141843.94620G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Message-ID: <20040117093324.M6180@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040116141843.94620G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Signal delivery to kernel threads/processes?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:49:19 -0000

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> > > 	if (p->p_flag & P_SYSTEM)
> > > 		return (EPERM);
> >
> > Another possible interpretation, not quite the same, might be to use
> > P_KTHREAD.
>
> And, to add insult to injury by following up to my post yet another time:
> init has P_SYSTEM set, so P_KTHREAD is a much better choice.  Either that
> or introduce a P_KERNEL flag.

Setting P_SYSTEM for init is a bug.  It also breaks debugging.  Setting it
for init seems to be just a bug in init_main.c 1.124.  I have run without
this setting for many years.  I noticed the breakage mainly for
"cat /proc/1/map".

Bruce