linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] signal: remove three noop tracehooks

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: <20110519161017.GA17265@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 18:10:17 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] signal: remove three noop tracehooks

Hi,

On 05/19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:45:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/16, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Heh. What can I say? Yes, this is true. Of course this breaks the out-of-tree
> > project, completely, and you even know its name ;) Although tracehook_get_signal()
> > logic was already broken by other changes...
>
> Yeap, but with ptrace updates, tracehook behaviors, which can't even
> be fully determined without consulting out-of-tree code, are bound to
> change.  Now that ptrace is receiving more capabilities, I don't see
> much point in maintaining them.

I didn't try to argue against this change. Although it will certainly
complicate my life ;)

Btw, this patch conflicts with 25985edcedea6396277003854657b5f3cb31a628
"Fix common misspellings", trivial.

Oleg.

--
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/