linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ptrace: do not use task->ptrace directly in core kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: do not use task->ptrace directly in core kernel

That is fine, but doesn't buy much.  i.e., we will be changing these again
before too long anyway I imagine.

I added task_ptrace() just for tracehook.h use, really.  There it drives
the event hooks.  Those uses are directly obsoleted by using another event
hooking mechanism such as utrace.  That applies to ptrace_signal() too.
But the other uses will be replaced by something different later, not just
go away.

The BUG_ON cases might as well just go away, probably.

The exit.c cases might be clearer if we give them a (trivial) local helper
with a more topical name like task_wait_inhibited().

ptrace_fork() is a wrapper that just calls arch_ptrace_fork(), which itself
is an empty macro on most configurations.  I think we might as well just
make ptrace_fork() an inline in linux/ptrace.h and put the test inside it.
(Thus any future changes touch ptrace.h and not fork.c.)

Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/