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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:24:08 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org 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. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists