| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20090430202828.8A763FC3BF@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:28:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: do not use task->ptrace directly in core kernel That is fine, but doesn't buy much. i.e., we will be changing these again before too long anyway I imagine. I added task_ptrace() just for tracehook.h use, really. There it drives the event hooks. Those uses are directly obsoleted by using another event hooking mechanism such as utrace. That applies to ptrace_signal() too. But the other uses will be replaced by something different later, not just go away. The BUG_ON cases might as well just go away, probably. The exit.c cases might be clearer if we give them a (trivial) local helper with a more topical name like task_wait_inhibited(). ptrace_fork() is a wrapper that just calls arch_ptrace_fork(), which itself is an empty macro on most configurations. I think we might as well just make ptrace_fork() an inline in linux/ptrace.h and put the test inside it. (Thus any future changes touch ptrace.h and not fork.c.) Thanks, Roland -- 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