linux-kernel - Re: ptrace && task->exit

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: <20090527232141.8B24DFC2BD@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 16:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ptrace && task->exit_code

> I didn't realize this until yesterday, but perhaps it makes sense
> to decouple ptrace && task_struct->exit_code?

I've long thought this was an attractive idea.  But it seems to have lots
of complications at least as long as ptrace-wait shares so much code with
normal wait.  I'd figured this might be one of the last things we clean up
after ptrace is disentangled from core data structures in most every other
way.

> This is not completely trivial, needs another short series.

I suspect it is more hassle than benefit to do this now.
I don't think it is the right priority.

> And. I spent a lot of time, but I can't see how to solve the problems
> with TASK_STOPPED tasks if we do this change.

I bet the complications of this all will be substantially different after
we change the ptrace locking.  So let's not worry about it yet.

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/