On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:40 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote: > > We have in the past had ptrace users that weren't just about debugging > so I don't know that it is fair to just dismiss it as debugging > infrastructure.
Absolutely. Some uses are more than just debug. People occasionally use ptrace because it's the only way to do what they want, so you'll find people who do it for sandboxing, for example. It's not necessarily designed for that, or particularly fast or well-suited for it, but I've definitely seen it used that way. So I don't think the behavioral test breakage like this is necessarily a huge deal, and until some "real use" actually shows that it cares it might be something we dismiss as "just test", but it very much has the potential to hit real uses. The fact that a behavioral test broke is definitely interesting. And maybe some of the siginfo allocations could depend on whether the signal is actually ever caught or not. For example, a terminal signal (or one that is ignored) might not need siginfo. But if the process is ptraced, maybe that terminal signal isn't actually terminal? So we might have situations where we want to simply check "is the signal target being ptraced".. Linus