[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160703200125.GJ15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 16:01:25 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: abort() fails to terminate PID 1 process
On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 09:58:45PM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> 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.
No. Halting the system safely (which kernel panic does) is completely
different from runaway wrong-code execution, and the only reason we
don't have runaway wrong-code execution right now is because I built
in the for(;;) safety in case termination failed.
Rich
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.
