[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82c4150b-3433-4e3f-2304-9aceef82a54b@skarnet.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:58:45 +0200
From: Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: abort() fails to terminate PID 1 process
On 03/07/2016 15:58, Rich Felker wrote:
> Whether you realize it or not, what you're saying is equivalent to
> saying that it's UB for a process that runs as pid 1 to call abort().
> There is no basis for such a claim.
There's no basis in the specification, but in practice, on Linux at least,
a process that runs as pid 1 outside of a container and that exits - whether
normally or via abort() or anything else - will cause a kernel panic. So
treating that case as UB is defensible, at least until musl is ported to an
OS where pid 1 death is less dramatic.
--
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
