Hi, Eric,
Why can't you have the process of interest do:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
execve(executable, args, ...);
/* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
/* Fix up the mostly correct process to look like it has been
Hi, Eric,
Why can't you have the process of interest do:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
execve(executable, args, ...);
/* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
/* Fix up the mostly correct process to look like it has been
* executing for a while.
On 02/17/2014 12:52 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:34:12PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> ...
>> Maybe we can make prlctl() do lite-execve()? It will open the executable,
>> read the
>> required amount of headers and just put data red from there onto mm-struct?
>> This
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:34:12PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
...
> Maybe we can make prlctl() do lite-execve()? It will open the executable,
> read the
> required amount of headers and just put data red from there onto mm-struct?
> This
> should be MUCH better, that full execve() with
On 02/15/2014 12:09 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov writes:
>
>> On 02/14/2014 11:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
>>>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
>> My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are
On 02/15/2014 12:09 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov xe...@parallels.com writes:
On 02/14/2014 11:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:34:12PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
...
Maybe we can make prlctl() do lite-execve()? It will open the executable,
read the
required amount of headers and just put data red from there onto mm-struct?
This
should be MUCH better, that full execve() with loading
On 02/17/2014 12:52 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:34:12PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
...
Maybe we can make prlctl() do lite-execve()? It will open the executable,
read the
required amount of headers and just put data red from there onto mm-struct?
This
should
Andrey Wagin writes:
> 2014-02-14 23:16 GMT+04:00 Eric W. Biederman :
>>
>> Hmm. Let me rewind this a little bit.
>>
>> I want to be very stupid and ask the following.
>>
>> Why can't you have the process of interest do:
>> ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
>> execve(executable, args,
Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:18:46PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Why can't you have the process of interest do:
>> >> > ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
>> >> > execve(executable, args, ...);
>> >> >
>> >> > /* Have the
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:18:46PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Why can't you have the process of interest do:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
execve(executable, args, ...);
/* Have the ptracer inject the
Andrey Wagin ava...@gmail.com writes:
2014-02-14 23:16 GMT+04:00 Eric W. Biederman ebied...@xmission.com:
Hmm. Let me rewind this a little bit.
I want to be very stupid and ask the following.
Why can't you have the process of interest do:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:18:46PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why can't you have the process of interest do:
> >> > ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
> >> > execve(executable, args, ...);
> >> >
> >> > /* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
> >> >
2014-02-14 23:16 GMT+04:00 Eric W. Biederman :
> Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
>>> > My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
>>> >
>>> > For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is
Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:47:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> >> Maybe we could improve this api and provide argument as a pointer
>> >> to a structure, which would have all the fields we're going to
>> >> modify, which in turn would allow us to verify that all
Pavel Emelyanov writes:
> On 02/14/2014 11:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
>
> For the resources you are
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:47:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >> Maybe we could improve this api and provide argument as a pointer
> >> to a structure, which would have all the fields we're going to
> >> modify, which in turn would allow us to verify that all new values
> >> are sane and fit
On 02/14/2014 11:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is
Cyrill Gorcunov writes:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
>> > My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
>> >
>> > For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
>> > verify that you are below the appropriate
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> > My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
> >
> > For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
> > verify that you are below the appropriate rlimit at all times and no
> >
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
verify that you are below the appropriate rlimit at all times and no
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do is to
verify that you are below the
On 02/14/2014 11:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
For the resources you are mucking with below all you have to do
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:47:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Maybe we could improve this api and provide argument as a pointer
to a structure, which would have all the fields we're going to
modify, which in turn would allow us to verify that all new values
are sane and fit rlimits,
Pavel Emelyanov xe...@parallels.com writes:
On 02/14/2014 11:16 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
For the resources
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:47:13PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Maybe we could improve this api and provide argument as a pointer
to a structure, which would have all the fields we're going to
modify, which in turn would allow us to verify that
2014-02-14 23:16 GMT+04:00 Eric W. Biederman ebied...@xmission.com:
Cyrill Gorcunov gorcu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:43:14PM +0400, Andrew Vagin wrote:
My brain hurts just looking at this patch and how you are justifying it.
For the resources you are mucking with
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:18:46PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Why can't you have the process of interest do:
ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACHME);
execve(executable, args, ...);
/* Have the ptracer inject the recovery/fixup code */
/* Fix up the mostly correct
28 matches
Mail list logo
