linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

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:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:02:37 +0100
From:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:59:02PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> We also have magic SIGSTOPs (magic in a sense they aren't
>> real signals sent by other processes):
>> * at PTRACE_ATTACH
>> * in child (if PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK or PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE opt is on)
>>
>> For example, flagging PTRACE_ATTACH SIGSTOP so that it can be
>> uniquely identified would solve some problems gdb is having with it.
>
> This, I don't agree with.  All we need is a better attach call without
> the implied SIGSTOP, there's no reason to diddle with PTRACE_ATTACH
> further.

Sure.

What do you think about SIGSTOP generated in in children on auto-attach
via PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK / PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE options?

IMHO, it would be good if we'd have a way to distinguish them from
real SIGSTOP signals.

-- 
vda
--
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/