[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080324231859.GA193@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:18:59 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: it is fun to strace /sbin/init
On 03/25, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> On Tue 2008-03-25 02:04:58, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/24, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >
> > > > /sbin/init is important, but there are other important (and sometimes
> > > > much more important) services. Why it is so special so that we can't
> > > > debug/strace it?
> > >
> > > Maybe. Let's kill /sbin/init protection in 2.6.26. But making it
> > > optional is wrong.
> >
> > You are right, the boot parameter is silly. How about sysctl?
>
> I'd prefer it to be hardcoded, really.
Yes! me too.
> "You can kill /sbin/init" sounds right.
>
> "You can kill /sbin/init on 2.6.26+" sounds... still quite ok.
>
> "You can kill /sbin/init on 2.6.26+ if you have /proc/sys/foo/bar ==
> 1" sounds... quite wrong.
Please look at another discussion, http://marc.info/?t=120568298600007
When I did this simple patch, I was very sure it is "obviously good".
But as Stephen pointed out, we have the systems that relies on the
current behaviour, even if this behaviour is not "optimal".
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists