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.