linux-kernel - Re: PATCH? tracehook_report

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]

Message-ID: <20090602001424.GA986@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jun 2009 02:14:24 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...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

On 06/01, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This is where the utrace attachment point has to be (i.e. outside all the
> locking).

Yes I see. Quoting myself:

	Yes, utrace-ptrace will likely change this code further anyway
	and move the code from _init() to _report_clone() back, but in this case
	I guess the whole tracehook_finish_clone() will go away, so this change
	looks right anyway to me.

> So I don't see any benefit to changing the ptrace status quo now
> for its own sake.

OK, 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/