From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17247 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2012 19:29:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 17237 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2012 19:29:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:29:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q26JTZZI024240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:35 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q26JTYF6011997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:35 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] attach-fail-reasons: SELinux deny_ptrace References: <20120306061739.GC24004@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120306061739.GC24004@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:17:39 +0100") Message-ID: <87r4x5ttnl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> and here is the last bit for new SELinux 'deny_ptrace': Jan> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786878 Jan> As even PTRACE_TRACEME fails in such case it needs to install hook for even Jan> that event. I didn't read the patches in detail, but I did skim them and I didn't see anything objectionable. Tom