Vivek Goyal <[email protected]> writes:
> I got a concern here. Are we not breaking the convention. NT_TASKSTRUCT note
> type represents that task_sturct is stored in note data. elf_core_dump()
> and /proc/kcore already do that (That's a different story that it might not
> be needed at all). Now if we store a null NT_TASKSTURCT, same note type will
> carry two meanings.
My impression is that NT_TASKSTRUCT has failed to define what actually appears
in the note, as the kernel task_struct is not designed to be exported to
user space, and can change without warning.
Hmm. NT_TASKSTRUCT feels like an information leak although I haven't
a clue what kernel information you could leak that would be interesting
enough that you could compromise the kernel. It looks like we should
export NT_TASKSTRUCT until we can decide what goes there.
> IMHO, introducing a null NT_KDUMPINFO will help in that sense, at least
> there are no two interpretations of same note type. Also it provides the
> scope to add more elements to it if need be.
Agreed. I was trying too hard to reuse what was already there.
Eric
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |