linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ptrace: copy_process() should disable stepping

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: <20091109162408.GA5160@redhat.com>
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/