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

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 15:54:14 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
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]

Hello,

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:48:08PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> 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".

Sorry, this one was too difficult and, even if somehow I pulled it,
unlikely to make upstream.  It's gonna be extremely fragile.
Unfortunately, userland would still have to deal with arbitrary order
of traps.

Thank you.

-- 
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/