linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ptrace: remove the extra wake_up_process() from ptrace

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: <20110117221340.E6A4F180996@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:13:40 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	jan.kratochvil@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ptrace: remove the extra wake_up_process() from ptrace_detach()

Of course I agree that the current code is wrong here.  But I'm still not
at all clear on what practical compatibility problems it introduces.  This
change is OK if and only if we are really making the only area clean and
well-defined in the same release cycle.  It doesn't really matter that the
old behavior was ill-defined and unreliable in absolute terms, because the
practical userland experience of it in real-world cases is what userland
has grown to expect.  We can't break any such expectations until we have a
clear answer about how to solve the problems correctly.

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/