linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] coredump: core dump masking support v2

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]

Message-ID: <20070203124853.GA4191@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:48:53 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Kawai, Hidehiro" <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Satoshi OSHIMA <soshima@...hat.com>,
	"Hideo AOKI@...hat" <haoki@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] coredump: core dump masking support v2

Hi!

> >>>Can you make this a little more transparent?  Having a magic bitmask does
> >>>not seem like the best way to do stuff.  Could you maybe make a core_flags
> >>>directory with a seperate file for each flag.  It could still map to a
> >>>single field in the mm, but be broken out for the proc filesystem.
> >>
> >>It seems to be one of the good enhancement idea, thanks.:-)
> >>But currently, there is only one flag. So we had better keep this simple
> >>implementation until someone requests to add a new flag.
> > 
> > If that is the case, can we rename the file from core_flags to something
> > more descriptive like dump_core_skip_anonymous_mappings.  The name
> > is a wild suggestion, the renaming does seem fairly important to me.
> > Remember once you get this in, changing the name will be fairly difficult
> > as admin tools and documentation will adopt the name.  These are usually
> > cases where it is better to do it right the first time.
> 
> Okay, I'll adopt your idea in the next version.
> I'm going to provide the proc entry as follows:
> 
>   (1) /proc/<pid>/core_flags/flags
>   (2) /proc/<pid>/core_flags/omit_anon_shared
> 
> (1) is the same as current core_flags. It is for expert users.
> (2) corresponds to one bit in (1).
> If (2) is set to 1, anonymous shared memory of the process is never
> dumped.

Now, that's what I call an ugly interface.

Can we simply add ulimit with boolean value, that says dump
anon_shared... or not? It will be simpler and faster, because you'll
not need locking.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/