linux-kernel - Re: PTRACE_SEIZE should not stop [Re: [PATCH 02/11] 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]

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 15:48:08 +0200
From:	Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	oleg@...hat.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu
Subject: Re: PTRACE_SEIZE should not stop  [Re: [PATCH 02/11] ptrace:
 implement PTRACE_SEIZE]

Hi Tejun,

On Mon, 16 May 2011 15:45:10 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I don't think INTERRUPT can be prioritized like that above existing
> trap conditions.  Traps are taken sometimes deep in the kernel
> (e.g. fork/exec) and often after modifying states irrevocably
> (e.g. signal is already dequeued on signal trap).  I don't think how
> it would be possible to rewind the state changes and replay it later.

OK, so that closes one of the major issues I was trying to get "fixed".


Thanks for info,
Jan
--
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/