| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:54:50 +0200 From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why I want PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP option On Friday 09 September 2011 02:18, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Denys. > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:50:01PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > Consider what will happen when a next ptrace fix will require > > a way to change ptrace API at runtime. A new option will likely > > be introduced, say, PTRACE_O_TRACEPONY, with next available > > bit position 7, and perhaps some new event will be generated, > > PTRACE_EVENT_PONY, with value.... yes, it can't be 7, > > PTRACE_EVENT_STOP took it. So it will probably be 8. > > Then, just give it the next matching number. My point is that previously, ptrace behavior was modified by setting options. Why don't we use this mechanism? Why we invent a different wheel? Ptrace is ugly as-is, why complicate it even further? The argument was that SETOPTIONS wasn't suitable for modifying attach behavior, but this is fixed by "set options on SEIZE" patch. I don't see why we can't use options mechanist to affect group-stop behavior now. -- vda -- 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