[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f7df3fa-ed15-5650-b26f-47c5225bfbf3@skarnet.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 22:20:46 +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 22:01, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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.
Halting the system, no matter how safely, is also completely different from
cleanly terminating the aborting process (while not impacting other processes
as is supposed to be guaranteed by Unix). At this point, we're wildly outside
the realm of specification anyway, and I find it acceptable to say that pid 1
abort (or any kind of death for that matter) is UB. Your choice of
implementation for abort() is good and safe, but I think it's just QoI,
not something you're bound to do by a standard.
--
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.
