Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: kill(2)
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: kill(2)
- From: SL Baur <steve@example.com>
- Date: 28 Jun 2001 17:36:34 +0900
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: vp@example.com's message of "28 Jun 2001 16:50:15 +0900"
- Mail-Copies-To: never
- References: <3B3AE1B7.26616.001@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Resent-From: tlug@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <ol0KLD.A.dKG.vvuO7@example.com>
- Resent-Sender: tlug-request@example.com
Viktor Pavlenko <vp@example.com> writes in tlug@example.com: > shimpei@example.com writes: >>> The reason I asked is that I have to set GID on the executable >>> (someone else from my group should be able to send a signal >>> to my process) and hate doing that. >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding your situation, setgid isn't enough; you >> need setuid. And yes, I can see why you would hate that.... > Yes, sure (I was thinking about something else). Thanks for correction. Why do you need people to send signals? Depending upon how fancy you want to get there are plenty of non-setuid ways to go about it. On HP/UX one possible way would be to set up a listening Unix domain socket, then enable SIGIO on that socket. That way when a connection is attempted, the process gets SIGIO. You don't need setuid for that.
- References:
- Re: kill(2)
- From: vp@example.com (Viktor Pavlenko)
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: kill(2)
- Next by Date: Re: kill(2)
- Prev by thread: Re: kill(2)
- Next by thread: Re: kill(2)
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links