linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] ptrace: kill tracehook_notify

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: <20110128210953.80F1B183C1E@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:09:53 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	oleg@...hat.com, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] ptrace: kill tracehook_notify_jctl()

I'm OK with this one if Oleg is.  I'll leave it up to him.  What's good
about the tracehook functions is that they clearly specify the semantics
and the assumptions in their kerneldoc comments.  It's ok to change things
around and have some fur flying while we clean things up.  But we really
should get back to a situation where the semantics and the logic of the
code are clearly documented, and we don't have implementation details and
ptrace user ABI semantics jumbled together implicitly in code that doesn't
explain what it all means.

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/