Date: 06 Oct 2001 10:34:16 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing ptrace(2)'s dependency on procfs(5) Message-ID: <xzphetdrwtz.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011005230944.57665A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011005230944.57665A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > (1) Actually, this is a duplicate of an out-of-band one: using > procfs_rwmem() as a function name in sys_process.c still jibes: are > you sure you don't want to rename it now rather than waiting? :-) How does ptrace_rwmem() sound? > Instead, modify p_candebug() to allow debugging of p1 by p1 always. > Structuring the P_SYSTEM check that way is fine, as that's a syntax > check, but since this case exempts the security check if it's > PT_TRACE_ME, I'd rather we modify the security check. Note that one > benefit to doing it this way is that if the admin disables debugging > globally using the existing policy sysctl, it also disables it for the > current process. Sounds reasonable. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzphetdrwtz.fsf>