[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh4_iMRmWcao6a8kCvR0Hhdrz+M9L+q4Bfcwx9E9D0huw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:15:37 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel stack read with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT and io_uring threads
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> For other ptrace_event calls I am playing with seeing if I can split
> them in two. Like sending a signal. So that we can have perform all
> of the work in get_signal.
That sounds like the right model, but I don't think it works.
Particularly not for exit(). The second phase will never happen.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists