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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:19:39 -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: PATCH? tracehook_report_clone: fix false positives > I suspect you misread my previous question. Apparently so. > I didn't mean PTRACE_ATTACH should use ptrace_init_task). I just meant that > perhaps it makes sense to move sigaddset() from tracehook_finish_clone() > to tracehook_finish_clone()->ptrace_init_task(). You mean from tracehook_report_clone to ptrace_init_task. Perhaps. tracehook_finish_clone->ptrace_init_task is inside write_lock_irq, so it should really be kept to the minimum of what has to be inside there. But the real reason is just that tracehook_report_clone() is called at the place in do_fork() where the ptrace SIGSTOP code was originally before the introduction of tracehook.h. This is where the utrace attachment point has to be (i.e. outside all the locking). So I don't see any benefit to changing the ptrace status quo now for its own sake. 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