From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10340 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Igmar Palsenberg Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: abort() fails to terminate PID 1 process Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:24:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20160620100443.GV22574@port70.net> <20160620194110.GM10893@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160703135846.GF15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160705030738.GS15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1469913804 17052 80.91.229.8 (30 Jul 2016 21:23:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:23:24 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-10353-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Jul 30 23:23:06 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bTbir-0004N9-6m for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:23:05 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32257 invoked by uid 550); 30 Jul 2016 21:23:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 32214 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2016 21:23:01 -0000 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 s1.palsenberg.com u6ULOHo1019470 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=palsenberg.com; s=s1; t=1469913858; bh=OuVWbklKXx2kIheHzgwJMiFI2GGeMxJhtRP1YiiXUA4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eLDTb2Rxl5ail8YQw4ZR7kLqs7LPNzE0ZCqxxNA8jicOQFFqRaJuJWf7HMYOAWn49 gU9jVWgU3TQOzR9G+CBI1MyaAVRVgbyDsnFaxGYtmSeJudO0eS0HSB72EYVNaTgyJs QOJxrrRzeDgYtcfaJJ5m0iFfDJgEHev4pXnq5y2M= In-Reply-To: <20160705030738.GS15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (s1.palsenberg.com [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:24:17 +0200 (CEST) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10340 Archived-At: > > > does not imply "calling a function whose behavior is well-defined can > > > legitimately lead to runaway code execution if the pid is 1". > > > > But doesn't "bevavior is well-defined" also imply that that function > > behaves as it should ? If it doesn't, doesn't the "well-defined" no longer > > apply ? I call it UB in this case. > > "Behavior is well-defined" means the specification tells what it does > and does not leave it implementation-defined, unspecified, or > undefined -- neither by explicitly saying so, nor by omission. Yeah, indeed. Sending signals is pretty well defined I assume. > > The standard also says a process can't ignore a SIGKILL, but on pid 1, it > > has no effect. I pretty much call that UB myself. > > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it > means. > > If anything what you're arguing is that the Linux kernel has a bug, > since the behavior of raising SIGKILL is specified and Linux does not > do what the spec says (for pid 1). That does not mean it's undefined > but rather that the implementation is behaving contrary to the defined > behavior. I wouldn't call it a bug, since it's documented behaviour. I have no idea how to call this to be honest, assuming that it even has a formal name. Igmar