linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] kill tracehook_notify

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: <20110623132754.GO30101@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:27:54 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] kill tracehook_notify_death()

Hey,

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > This also fixes a minor bug, if the exiting task is the group_leader
> > > and it is traced by its real_parent, tracehook_notify_death() returns
> > > task->exit_signal or SIGCHLD depending on thread_group_empty(), this
> > > looks strange.
> >
> > Maybe we should do the above in a separate patch?
> 
> Do you think this makes sense? OK, I can do this...

Having subtle behavior change mixed with reorganization isn't too
nice, so I think separating is better.

> > thread_group_leader() seems unnecessarily indirect.
> 
> This is what I disagree with. Contrary, I think thread_group_leader() exactly
> explains what do we want to check. (but once again, exec_id logic should be
> cleanuped, not only in this function).

Hmmm... well, this was minor to begin with and thread_group_leader()
matches later patches better, so using thread_group_leader() seems
fine.

Thanks.

-- 
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/