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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:18:53 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> Subject: Re: Why I want PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP option Hello, Denys. On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:50:01PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > Consider what will happen when a next ptrace fix will require > a way to change ptrace API at runtime. A new option will likely > be introduced, say, PTRACE_O_TRACEPONY, with next available > bit position 7, and perhaps some new event will be generated, > PTRACE_EVENT_PONY, with value.... yes, it can't be 7, > PTRACE_EVENT_STOP took it. So it will probably be 8. Then, just give it the next matching number. If options naturally happen to match the events, that's a nice coincidence. If the real life requirement deviates from the beautiful one-to-one mapping, then, so be it. No, the magical contiguous one to one mapping isn't the most important design concern. To me, the rationale presented here almost argues against PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP. :( Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists