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  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]
Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:24:08 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <>
To:	Roland McGrath <>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: copy_process() should disable stepping

On 11/08, Roland McGrath wrote:
> That is inappropriate use of arch details in generic code.  It might
> happen to be harmless fritter in practice on the arch's we have but it
> is certainly not the correct way to go about things.  You should just
> call user_disable_single_step() unconditionally.  Even on an arch with
> no such machinery at all that should be defined safely as a no-op (see
> linux/ptrace.h).  If there is some reason not to do that, please
> explain it.

Yes, we have arch_has_single_step.

I added test_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLESTEP) check for 2 reasons: to
optimize out user_disable_single_step() in the likely case, and because
I wasn't sure it is safe to call user_disable_single_step() unconditionally.

OK, will resend, thanks.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists