linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch/tile: provide PT_FLAGS_COMPAT value in pt

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

Message-ID: <20121213162710.GA20271@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:27:10 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/tile: provide PT_FLAGS_COMPAT value in pt_regs

On 12/13, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2012 10:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > But ptrace_setoptions() returns EINVAL? it doesn't accept illegal bits.
>
> It does return EINVAL - but if it gets both legal and illegal bits,
> it honors all the legal bits first.

This was true in the past, but now we have

	static int ptrace_setoptions(struct task_struct *child, unsigned long data)
	{
		unsigned flags;

		if (data & ~(unsigned long)PTRACE_O_MASK)
			return -EINVAL;

		/* Avoid intermediate state when all opts are cleared */
		flags = child->ptrace;
		flags &= ~(PTRACE_O_MASK << PT_OPT_FLAG_SHIFT);
		flags |= (data << PT_OPT_FLAG_SHIFT);
		child->ptrace = flags;

		return 0;
	}

> > So I'd say it looks fine to me.
>
> Thanks!  Should I convert that to a Reviewed-by or Acked-by on the patch?

Heh ;) Please feel free to add Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

Oleg.

--
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/