Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752058AbYCTXZT (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:25:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759669AbYCTXY3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:24:29 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:36315 "EHLO gprs189-60.eurotel.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758140AbYCTXY1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:24:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:25:03 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , Davide Libenzi , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Laurent Riffard , Pavel Emelyanov , Roland McGrath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ptrace: it is fun to strace /sbin/init Message-ID: <20080320232503.GG17431@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20080316155455.GA20848@tv-sign.ru> <20080320162718.GA4397@ucw.cz> <20080320165756.GA11197@tv-sign.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080320165756.GA11197@tv-sign.ru> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1552 Lines: 40 On Thu 2008-03-20 19:57:56, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/20, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > Ptracing of /sbin/init is not allowed. Of course, this is very dangerous, but > > > may be useful. Introduce the kernel boot parameter to allow this. > > ... > > > @@ -803,6 +803,8 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. > > > Run specified binary instead of /sbin/init as init > > > process. > > > > > > + init_ptrace [KNL] Allows to ptrace init. Very dangerous. Don't use. > > > + > > > > I don't know what ptracing init is good for, and I believe people > > wanting to do this kind of special stuff can patch their own kernel... > > Yes sure. But could you explain why this can be bad given that ptracing > init needs the explicit boot parameter? IOW, could you explain why you > don't like this small and trivial change which adds a minimal impact? "It can't be bad, its optional". It is bad exactly _because_ it is optional. Anything that adds boot parameter is *not* trivial... Why not add please_randomly_corrupt_memory boot parameter? It may be useful for something... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html pomozte zachranit klanovicky les: http://www.ujezdskystrom.info/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/