linux-kernel - Re: PTRACE_DETACH without stop [Re: [PATCH 04/11] ptrace: implement 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: <20110516122414.GS23665@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 14:24:14 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	indan@....nu
Subject: Re: PTRACE_DETACH without stop  [Re: [PATCH 04/11] ptrace:
 implement PTRACE_INTERRUPT]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:08:22PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > Nope.  What userland is currently dealing with isn't that type of
> > conditions.  It's dealing with nasty side effects of implied and
> > required signals, which will be removed with the new interface.
> 
> They won't as there will be new INTERRUPT event and when one wants to trap it
> one has to deal with various signals coming before or after it.

I'd rather lean toward handling it properly from userland.  Strictly
defining trap order is too fragile.  I think the right thing to do
here is properly documenting how to recognize and handle different
types of traps.

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/