> On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 11:57:33AM +0200, Olaf Kirch wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:36:44 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > The problem is: when threaded programs are ported from other Unixes
> > > then this may introduce unique security holes on Linux. Currently the
> > > distribution s don't seem to contain too many threaded programs, but
> > > I expect that to change soon.
...
> This all is a strong argument for fixing CLONE_PID @) - or maybe CLONE_PERMS
> should be considered.
[the problem discussed being that permissions changes in one thread of a
process on Linux do not "propagate" to the others]
I agree; I've had a hard time writing threaded applications on Linux due to
the thread semantics not working the way my nice O'Reilly "pthreads
Programming" book says they should. The reason I post is not to negatively
criticize, but to enquire if a Greater Being has a reason for avoiding
CLONE_PID or if it's just not implemented yet because no one is working on
it/finished it. In the former case, I'd be curious to know what the reason
is.
thanks,
-bp
-- B. James Phillippe <bryan@terran.org> Linux, networks, C++ development http://earth.terran.org/~bryan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html