linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip 1/3] Pass mm->flags to binfmt core

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: <20091113232959.EF2F9100E@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:29:59 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 1/3] Pass mm->flags to binfmt core_dump for bitflag
 consistency

> this would fix the (probably harmless) race too, but isnt the whole 
> approach taken by the patch more robust, i.e. to take a snapshot of 
> mm->flags value and pass it along coredump processing?

Yes, I think it is a fine thing to do.  I'm just being explicit about what
I think the (only) concrete issues are motivating a change.

> we should probably introduce a coredump parameter struct, and pass that 
> along:

Also sounds fine to me.


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/