Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.bugs.v7,net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: unexpected alarms Message-ID: <4889@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 12:49:24 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.4889 Posted: Tue Jan 8 12:49:24 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 12:49:24 EST References: <4861@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 14 Blush. Several people have pointed out that the stuff on page 229 of Kernighan&Pike does *not* rely on alarms persisting across exec. My mistake; I was originally looking around for any sign that the behavior might be useful, and I looked at the K&P discussion but not at the code. Does anybody know of any case where the persistence of alarms across exec is genuinely useful? I personally think that just cancelling them altogether is the right thing to do. My kernel mod cancels them only for setuid/gid programs simply because this was the minimum change in behavior needed to make things safe. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry