linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:49:07 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

On 07/22, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Yeah, it looks like a proper mess.

Yes.

> It seems ptrace left too much for
> archs to decide.  Events to be reported should be defined by generic
> ptrace code

I agree very much. Right now I am not sure if it really makes sense
to avoid the SIGTRAP signals, but in any case I think that at least
we need the generic ptrace_sigtrap(si_code, ...) helper which hides
all details.

And note that force_sig*() we use currently is wrong in this case,
it removes SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE.

And we should also cleanup the force_* mess. Also, it would be
nice to remove the "task_struct *t" argument, force_sig_info()
should be only used for synchronous signals. Afaics, only oom
killer really needs force_sig_info() with t != current. And this
reminds me, we need send_sigkill().

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/