linux-kernel - RFC: ptrace: Enabling PTRACE_{GET,SET}REGSET calls without CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110401164713.GA16870@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:47:13 +0100
From:	Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand@...aro.org>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: RFC: ptrace: Enabling PTRACE_{GET,SET}REGSET calls without
 CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK

Hi all,

I notice in kernel/ptrace.c that the generic regset ptrace calls
PTRACE_GETREGSET and PTRACE_SETREGSET are predicated on
CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK.

However, if I'm reading the code correctly then all these calls
really depend on is regsets implemented in the target arch.

Since I'm separately proposing a regsets implementation for ARM,
it would be nice to enable these ptrace calls; but I don't think
we're ready to enable CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK there for now.

Does anyone know whether it would be safe/straightforward to
change the #ifdef in kernel/ptrace.c to something else,
such as CORE_DUMP_USE_REGSET?  I think all arches which implement
regsets define this, though I haven't researched this thoroughly.

Any views welcome.

Cheers
---Dave
--
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/