From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1759163AbZEFVLe@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759163AbZEFVLe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 6 May 2009 17:11:34 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755253AbZEFVLZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 6 May 2009 17:11:25 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:36123 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752102AbZEFVLZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 May 2009 17:11:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3a] ptrace: add _ptrace_may_access()
In-Reply-To: Christoph Hellwig's message of  Wednesday, 6 May 2009 16:47:07 -0400 <20090506204700.GA24160@infradead.org>
References: <20090505224729.GA965@redhat.com>
	<20090506080050.GF17457@elte.hu>
	<20090506203224.684C7FC39E@magilla.sf.frob.com>
	<20090506204700.GA24160@infradead.org>
X-Zippy-Says: ...  Blame it on the BOSSA NOVA!!!
Message-Id: <20090506210925.AF903FC39E@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed,  6 May 2009 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> Yeah.  And at the same time we might move it out of ptrace.c and give it
> a more descriptive name given that most users aren't related to ptrace
> in any way.  may_inspect_task maybe?  I'm good at naming things..

Yes, I would like to have it outside ptrace.c (I'd forgotten about that).
fs/proc/base.c is where most of the users really are, but CONFIG_PROC_FS=n
makes putting it there problematical.

The name probably should stay the same unless/until we rename the LSM hooks
to match.  TBH, two separate hooks would make more sense to me than the
PTRACE_MODE_* argument.  For the hook replacing PTRACE_MODE_READ, the name
may_inspect_task is apropos (not that I am attached to any given name).


Thanks,
Roland