All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@attbi.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bug in setpgid()? process groups and thread groups
Date: 02 Aug 2003 13:30:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1059856202.1374.12.camel@entropy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200308021908.h72J82x10422@magilla.sf.frob.com>

On Sat, 2003-08-02 at 12:08, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The problem exists with uids/gids as well, in the sense that they are
> changed per-thread but POSIX semantics are that setuid et al affect the
> whole process (i.e. all threads in a thread group).

Is there any particular reason why the POSIX semantics are desirable
(besides "that's the way POSIX says it should be")?

Personally, I can think of no benenfit to per-process uids/gids, and
several scenarios where per-thread uids/gids would be good. (Think of a
multi-threaded server handling connections from N different users on N
threads, or a 1 thread per CPU server handling many different user
connections, or a multi-threaded web server running perl/php/etc. stuff
as different users in different threads.)

Just wondering, Nicholas.


  reply	other threads:[~2003-08-02 20:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-08-02  7:57 [PATCH] bug in setpgid()? process groups and thread groups Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2003-08-02  8:20 ` Ulrich Drepper
2003-08-02  8:50   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2003-08-02 19:08     ` Roland McGrath
2003-08-02 20:30       ` Nicholas Miell [this message]
2003-08-02 20:51       ` Alan Cox
2003-08-03  7:22         ` Florian Weimer
2003-08-03 21:00           ` Alan Cox
2003-08-03  4:15       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2003-08-02 18:39   ` William Lee Irwin III

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1059856202.1374.12.camel@entropy \
    --to=nmiell@attbi.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.