linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

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: <20110304161541.GV20499@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:15:41 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

Hello, Oleg.

On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 05:01:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> What I meant, I think the exact details can be discussed separately.
> Say, personally I'd prefer 2 different requests, ATTACH && INTERUPT,
> but I think this is very minor, and I agree with everything as long
> as user-space developers do not object. I just tried to avoid the
> discussion of the "cosmetic" details at this point.

Understood.  One thing tho.  Do you think having ATTACH_NO_STOP would
be better?  I think that's a noticeable difference.  To me, it seems
to only complicate things.  If we decide to go for
ATTACH_STOP_WITHOUT_SIDE_EFFECT then the difference between that and
INTERRUPT again becomes really small, so that was the reason why I
proposed to have a unified one.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/