linux-kernel - Re: Process-wide watchpoints

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YBvyTDR+q0M62vKR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:10:36 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Morehouse <mascasa@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Process-wide watchpoints

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:53:59PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Humm... I was thinking of perf_event_open(pid == 0).
> It does not make sense to send SIGTRAP in a remote process, because it
> does not necessarily cooperate with us.
> 
> But is there any problem with clone w/o CLONE_THREAD? Assuming the
> current process has setup the signal handler, the child will have the
> same handler and the same code/address space. So delivery of SIGTRAP
> should work the same way in the child.

Nothing should be doing CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD. Yes, it's
possible, but if you do so, you get to keep the pieces IMO.

Current libc either does a full clone (fork) or pthread_create,
pthread_create does CLONE_THREAD.