| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110523130946.GB7232@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:09:46 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE On 05/19, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:55:39AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I've been thinking about Jan's suggestion to make ATTACH and DETACH > > not require tracee to trap. We already have this for DETACH for cases > > where the tracer is killed and it seems it wouldn't be too difficult > > to make that happen for ATTACH either and for that to be truly useful > > I suppose PTRACE_SETOPTIONS shouldn't require trapped state either. > > Jan, would that be enough for the use cases you have on mind? > > I've been trying this and clean DETACH requires the tracee to be > trapped (or not running). The arch detach hook, which BTW is not > executed when the tracer is killed, modifies tracee state expecting it > to be off-cpu. Argh. Yes, ptrace_disable() is the problem, I didn't think about it :/ 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists