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: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:58:04 +0900 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> 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 Hello, Denys. On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:54:50AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > 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. The argument was that there are other more difficult issues and the added benefit - superficial consistency - doesn't justify the necessary complexity, and it was repeated multiple times. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists