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.
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).