From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 6 1:34:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474DD37B406; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA63859; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 10:34:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Robert Watson Cc: Peter Wemm , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing ptrace(2)'s dependency on procfs(5) References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 06 Oct 2001 10:34:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Robert Watson 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