Subject: Re: killing the unkillable
To: Alan Barrett <email@example.com>
From: Giles Lean <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/10/2002 09:41:57
> Perhaps we need a new syscall to *really* kill a process, even if it's
> in a state where normal signal delivery does not happen.
Urk -- when processes are unkillable there's a reason. The reason is
sometimes hardware and sometimes a kernel bug. Neither will be fixed
by removing the process, and doing so will mislead administrators who
don't understand what is going on.
A system with a long term unkillable process is headed for a reboot,
possibly via a crash dump to collect the evidence, but a reboot