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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001221355250.13231@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:59:11 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> 
> Finally, I don't know how to address the logic of "if a feature
> requires utrace, that's a bad argument for utrace" and at the same
> time "you need to show a killer app for utrace".  What could possibly
> satisfy both of those constraints?  Please advise.

The point is, the feature needs to be a killer feature. And I have yet to 
hear _any_ such killer feature, especially from a kernel maintenance 
standpoint.

The "better ptrace than ptrace" is irrelevant. Sure, we all know ptrace 
isn't a wonderful feature. But it's there, and a debugger is going to have 
support for it anyway, so what's the _advantage_ of a "better ptrace 
interface"? There is absolutely _zero_ advantage, there's just "yet 
another interface". We can't get rid of the old one _anyway_.

And the seccomp replacement just sounds horrible. Using some tracing 
interface to implement security models sounds like the worst idea ever.

And like it or not, over the last almost-decade, _not_ having to have to 
work with system tap has been a feature, not a problem, for the kernel 
community.

So what's the killer feature?

			Linus
--
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/