Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues
From: Ingo Molnar (mingo_at_elte.hu)
Date: 09/14/04
- Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: Changes to ide-probe.c in 2.6.9-rc2 causing improper detection"
- In reply to: Albert Cahalan: "Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues"
- Next in thread: Pavel Machek: "Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues"
- Reply: Pavel Machek: "Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:32:14 +0200 To: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>
* Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> wrote:
> > > I'd much prefer LRU allocation. There are
> > > lots of system calls that take PID values.
> > > All such calls are hazardous. They're pretty
> > > much broken by design.
> >
> > this is a pretty sweeping assertion. Would you
> > care to mention a few examples of such hazards?
>
> kill(12345,9)
> setpriority(PRIO_PROCESS,12345,-20)
> sched_setscheduler(12345, SCHED_FIFO, &sp)
>
> Prior to the call being handled, the process may
> die and be replaced. Some random innocent process,
> or a not-so-innocent one, will get acted upon by
> mistake. This is broken and dangerous.
easy to fix: SIGSTOP the task, check it's really
the one you want and then do the setpriority /
setscheduler call and SIGCONT it. Any privileged
code that is about to spread some of its privileges
via asynchronous system-calls need to be careful.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: Changes to ide-probe.c in 2.6.9-rc2 causing improper detection"
- In reply to: Albert Cahalan: "Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues"
- Next in thread: Pavel Machek: "Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues"
- Reply: Pavel Machek: "Re: /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
