"once the process hosting the thread is ended, all memory that may have been leaked is released back to the os. No os restart is needed."
Yes, that is what is suppose to happen. What happens when an errant thread gobbles up memory? Killing the offending thread don't always free up the memory it took.
"Also, one thread terminating unexpectedly generally has no effect on the system as a whole."
Yes, that is the way it is suppose to work. However what happens when an errant thread starts to stomp all over the other threads? Because each process may have it's own protected memory space, threads don't. Piggybacking defeats the sole purpose of protected memory.
"svchost is a special process, designed to be a surrogate container for services. It's supposed to host services. No "Apps" piggyback onto this, only services."
Yes, I understand that. However MS's own programming guidelines encourage the use of piggybacking on processes. svchost was nothing more than an example. And yes, svchost can, will and has brought the entire system down.
Discussion on:
Message 14 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
