On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:31 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > And how about "cpu_to_le16(1) == 1" instead of "ntohl(1) != 1"?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Using a networking macro to detect endianness is old school: we have the
> nice explicit macros these days...
>
> > > > + while (pm.count > 0 && vma) {
> > > > + if (!ptrace_may_attach(task)) {
> > > > + ret = -EIO;
> > > > + goto out_mm;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > You already checked ptrace_may_attach() earlier in this function; do you
> > > need to do that again?
> >
> > I think so. Consider exec(). This whole area is full of interesting
> > traps and it pays to be paranoid.
>
> I don't think normal ptraces get cut on exec, so I'm not sure why this
> should be different.
They absolutely do, if UID changes. Consider ptracing a shell
launching a setuid binary. For something more closely analogous,
consider opening /proc/pid/mem on the same shell...
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
