![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> 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 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-23 07:26 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||