Re: ptrace.2: PTRACE_KILL needs a stopped process too

[Pedro Alves]

On 05/09/2012 10:14 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

>> i like to assume that my code isn't going to be bug free, so the more
>> mechanisms i have in place to protect innocent bystanders the better :)
>> -mike
> 
> From this pov PTRACE_KILL is safer, I agree ;)


Yeah, until you trip on that case where it resumes the process
instead of killing it...  At that point, it's useless.

Since I know Mike likes hacking on GDB so much ;-), FYI, this is
exercised by the gdb.base/kill-after-signal.exp test.

-- 
Pedro Alves
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/