From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 28 21:33:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA10757 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:33:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA10613; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:32:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA00226; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:32:47 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id GAA05814; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:32:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980429063246.07285@follo.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:32:46 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Karl Denninger , Jason Nordwick Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, Robert Withrow , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER References: <199804280030.UAA06099@spooky.rwwa.com> <199804280453.XAA03316@dyson.iquest.net> <19980428073841.05698@mcs.net> <19980428192742.1224.qmail@xcf.berkeley.edu> <19980428143114.33662@mcs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <19980428143114.33662@mcs.net>; from Karl Denninger on Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 02:31:14PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 02:31:14PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote: [... types of SIGDANGER handling...] > This leaves you with: > > 1) Do nothing - you get the semantics we have now. If the kernel > needs to whack you it will, without notice, but the warning > is ignored (you don't want to do anything with it). > > 2) Trap the signal - you get notice, and can clean up and exit if you > are able. You're still vulnerable, in that the kernel can whack > you if it needs to (and you're still around). The kernel can put > these processes into the "second round" bucket - it at least knows > that you're trying to help. > > 3) Set SIG_HOLD. You're a critical process and the kernel should go > pick on someone else if it can. If it can't, well, tough bananas, > but at least we tried to keep you going. We should distinguish between user processes and root processes somehow, too. A user shouldn't be able to make root's processes die unless the machine is explictly configured for that to be possible (IMO). Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message