linux-kernel - Re: Why I want PTRACE_O

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110911005804.GF29319@htj.dyndns.org>
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/