linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach

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:	Mon, 4 May 2009 21:30:16 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/2] utrace/ptrace: simplify/cleanup ptrace attach

On 05/04, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> I guess I'm slightly confused.

Me too ;)

> We want to merge all of the "pure" ptrace
> cleanup patches before any utrace patch.

Yes, exactly!

The second patch "ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach" has nothing
to do with utrace, and it is really pure ptrace cleanup.

But it can't be applied to -mm tree, because it (textually) conficts with
utrace changes in ptrace_attach().

> When those are on their way,
> we'll update the utrace patches not to conflict.  I don't think it makes
> sense to include utrace.patch's little ptrace.c change in the baseline tree
> for your ptrace cleanup patches.

Yes, but in this case, how can we push it before utrace-core.patch ?

The first patch is only for -mm, to avoid the painful dependencies.

Since you seem to mostly agree with the second patch, what should I do?

Oleg.

--
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/