linux-kernel - Re: utrace vs. ptrace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20060725185744.GA15844@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:57:44 +0200
From:	Olaf Hering <olh@...e.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>, arjan@...radead.org,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: utrace vs. ptrace

 On Tue, Jul 25, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> What you often want is not a core-dump at all, but a "stop the process" 
> thing. It's really irritating that the core-dump is generated and the 
> process is gone, when it would often be a lot nicer if instead of 
> core-dumping, the process was just stopped and then you could attach to it 
> with gdb, and get the whole damn information (including things like access 
> to open file descriptors etc).
> 
> But again, that has nothing to do with core-dumping. 

It would be helpful to have that sort of functionality in mainline.
Would a patch be acceptable that sends SIGSTOP instead of SIGSEGV or
SIGILL if some knob was enabled, either global or per process?
-
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/