From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pedro Alves Subject: Re: ptrace.2: PTRACE_KILL needs a stopped process too Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 20:35:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4FAAC706.6000808@redhat.com> References: <20091216004533.22261.qmail@kosh.dhis.org> <20120422200459.GA7519@redhat.com> <201205091109.35637.vapier@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201205091109.35637.vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Oleg Nesterov , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , pacman-ptgZXYu0fikgsBAKwltoeQ@public.gmane.org, linux-man , lkml , Denys Vlasenko , Tejun Heo , Jan Kratochvil List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On 05/09/2012 04:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > probably not that big of a deal, but the reason i like using > ptrace(PTRACE_KILL) over a raw kill() is that you are less likely to kill the > wrong process by accident. maybe not that big of a deal in practice though. And you can do tgkill instead. It was specifically invented to handle the reuse case. -- Pedro Alves -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html