[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110908004438.GC3987@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:44:38 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dvlasenk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in
'data' parameter
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:40:31PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> + if (seize) {
> + if (addr != 0)
> + goto out;
> + if ((flags & ~(long)PTRACE_O_MASK) != PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL)
Please use (unsigned long). Also, wouldn't it be better to do the
following instead?
if (!(flags & PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL))
goto out;
flags &= ~PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL;
if ((flags & ~(unsigned long(PTRACE_O_MASK))))
goto out;
Then, we can later just delete the first three lines when removing
SEIZE_DEVEL.
> @@ -263,11 +272,9 @@ static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task, long request,
> if (task->ptrace)
> goto unlock_tasklist;
>
> - task->ptrace = PT_PTRACED;
> - if (seize)
> - task->ptrace |= PT_SEIZED;
> if (task_ns_capable(task, CAP_SYS_PTRACE))
> - task->ptrace |= PT_PTRACE_CAP;
> + flags |= PT_PTRACE_CAP;
> + task->ptrace = flags;
Can you please put this in a separate patch? Hmm... also I think we
probably want to set ->ptrace while holding siglock too. There are
places which assume ->ptrace is protected by siglock. We can move
siglock locking above so that both ->ptrace setting and linking are
protected by siglock and use send_signal() instead of send_sig_info()
for the implied SIGSTOP. Note that __ptrace_unlink() would need
similar update too.
Thank you.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists