linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] move exit_ptrace() from forget_original_parent() to do

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:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:59:32 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] move exit_ptrace() from forget_original_parent()
	to do_exit()

On 02/19, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > If we ever change exit_ptrace() to do the blocking calls, it makes
> > sense to move it after exit_signals().
>
> I'm not sure I understand this comment.  I guess you just mean that if we
> block, we should be sure to do the exit_signals() pass-the-pending-buck
> work afterwards.

Another reason: it is better to set PF_EXITING asap, before doing something
which can block/etc. PF_EXITING means that complete_signal()->wants_signal()
will not pick us as ->curr_target.

> OK.  But I think we want it after exit_signals anyway so
> that ptrace_traceme() can check PF_EXITING (cf 1/4 review).

Yes, you are right.

> Also, I think this patch should be the very last of the series.

Agreed.

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/