Subject: Re: procfs/ptrace/systrace/ktrace diff
To: None <>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/26/2006 00:58:24
> > why this patch doesn't have amd64 part?
> what should we change for amd64?
> phyre:arch {31} egrep 'HAVE_(PTRACE|PROCFS)_MACHDEP' i386/include/*
> i386/include/ptrace.h:#define   __HAVE_PTRACE_MACHDEP
> i386/include/ptrace.h:#define   __HAVE_PROCFS_MACHDEP
> phyre:arch {32} egrep 'HAVE_(PTRACE|PROCFS)_MACHDEP' amd64/include/*
> phyre:arch {33}
> (I think whoever did amd64 did some heavy copy/paste ;)

if procfs_machdep_rw is merely dead code, it's fine.

> proc_isunder() should be in the secmodel.

do you mean chroot(8) should be a part of secmodel?

> > does it mean to prohibit even reading of init's status if securelevel >= 0?
> yeah. can change, but again, we need to pass more context.

why don't you pass the necessary context?

> > i'm not sure if it's a good idea to make every callers of process_doXXX
> > use kauth_foo() directly.  maybe it depends how much/kind of contexts you
> > will pass to listeners, tho.
> see above wrt/context. "<lwp> wants to use procfs to <r/w> on <node>",
> "<lwp> wants to use ptrace to <req> on <proc>", etc.

i wonder whether process_doXXX or its callers is a better place to
call kauth_foo().