[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABV8kRxQNPUzLaJ1tFF8H-E_iqCkz0+Ac5rPBurnmA3GcofMmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 19:22:01 -0400
From: Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...nel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Robert O'Callahan" <roc@...nos.co>, Kyle Huey <khuey@...nos.co>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ptrace: Stop supporting SIGKILL for PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT
Hi Eric,
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 6:25 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> > Recently I had a conversation where it was pointed out to me that
> > SIGKILL sent to a tracee stropped in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is quite
> > difficult for a tracer to handle.
> >
>
> RR folks any comments?
>
> Did I properly understand what Keno Fischer was asking for when we
> talked in person?
Yes, this is indeed what I had in mind. I have not yet had the opportunity
to try out your patch series (sorry), but from visual inspection, it does indeed
do what I wanted, which is to make sure that a tracee stays in
PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT for the tracer to inspect, even if there is another
SIGKILL incoming simultaneously (since otherwise it may be impossible
for the tracer to observe the PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT if two SIGKILLs
come in rapid succession). I will try to take this series for a proper spin
shortly.
Keno
Powered by blists - more mailing lists