Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:29:03 -0600 (CST) From: James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@interface-business.de> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Please review a change to lock(1) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10012070825530.50115-100000@bsdie.rwsystems.net> In-Reply-To: <20001207115835.V4709@B7173150.DeutschePost.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maybe you could see if it's PPID becomes 1 as init inherits it as an orphan from the dead parent process. I would *definately* syslog the error as a simple error *could* be an attempt to trick lock. Some programs deserve paranoia due to their use and level of users' blind trust. - Jy@ On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, J Wunsch wrote: > i think everybody's happy when seeing those dead processes running > around forever, eating up all CPU time -- since they are too stupid to > notice the tty they're trying to read from is gone. lock(1) is one of > those culprits, as i just noticed. You can easily prove this by > logging into a plain tty, starting "lock -np", and killing the shell > e. g. with SIGABRT (or SIGKILL to be sure). The shell is gone, but > lock is still there, trying to lock nothing now... [ ... wish more folks would trim posts ... ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10012070825530.50115-100000>