linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

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: <20100121170541.7425ff10.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:05:41 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	utrace-devel@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:51:47 -0500 "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com> wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 04:31:45PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Someone please sell this to us.
> > Here's what Oleg said last time I asked this: [...]
> 
> I wonder if Roland/Oleg are being too modest in their current role as
> ptrace maintainers.  Considering that *they* think of utrace as a
> means toward proper refactoring of ptrace, how much further burden of
> proof should they shoulder?  To what extent are other subsystem
> maintainers required to "sell" reworkings of their areas, when there
> appear to be no drawbacks and at least arguable benefits?
> 

ptrace is a nasty, complex part of the kernel which has a long history
of problems, but it's all been pretty quiet in there for the the past few
years.  This leads one to expect that a rip-out-n-rewrite is a
high-risk prospect.  So, quite reasonably, one looks for a good reason
for taking such risk.

It's not really appropriate to generalise from other subsystem
maintainer's reworkings onto ptrace.  It's very rare that we'd make a
change this radical to a tricky part of core kernel.

--
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/