| 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: <20110603154632.GD23757@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:46:32 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com, pedro@...esourcery.com Subject: Re: [PATCHSET ptrace] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE/INTERRUPT and group stop notification, take#4 On 06/03, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Friday 03 June 2011 03:24, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Anyways, let's think about that, but SIGSTOP on clone is closely > > linked to why SEIZE is used in the first place and I currently lean > > toward tying it to SEIZE. > > Ok. > > SIGSTOP on clone is less problematic because in practice it's > rather hard to send a real SIGSTOP to a thread which is _just_ created. > So the race window is mostly theoretical It is not. The new child can dequeue a signal which was sent to the process (thread group). How the tracer can distinguish? Also, SIGSTOP can be sent to pgrp and the new tracee can be forked. I think that SEIZE should never send SIGSTOP on auto-attach, without any options. 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