[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1607041537510.30017@s1.palsenberg.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:38:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Igmar Palsenberg <igmar@...senberg.com>
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.
The old HP system we had at the university also paniced if I can remember
correctly. To he honest, I have no sane idea what it should do otherwise.
Igmar
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.
