linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

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: <20110721080240.GZ3455@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:02:40 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 03:33:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the ptrace tree got a conflict in
> arch/s390/kernel/traps.c between commit 248bed4b0f3c ("[S390] use siginfo
> for sigtrap signals") from the s390 tree and commit a288eecce525
> ("ptrace: kill trivial tracehooks") from the ptrace tree.
> 
> It looks like the former is a superset of the latter, so I used the
> former.

Yeap, pretty much.  Martin, testing if (current->ptrace) is enough.
If PT_PTRACED is not set, no other flag there is allowed to set.
Also, I think we really should standardize what gets reported in these
debug traps instead of letting each arch do its own thing.

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/