Re: Build failure for ``no options PTRACE''

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

Kamil wrote:

> This, I propose to do the following:
>
> 1. Remove the modularization of ptrace. This does not affect the compat
> layers that still can and should be in my opinion modular.
>
> 2. Either abandon 'no PTRACE' or make it complete ifdefing all the
> ptrace-related code from the kernel core.

I'm not commenting on usefulness of having a PTRACE module;  I'll
leave that discussion to others.

However, you cannot implement #2 without also implementing #1.  You
cannot simply ifdef-out the calls to the ptrace code if it is still
possible to load ptrace as a module.

> 3. If we have security related concerns, add
> "security.models.extensions.ptrace".

Of course, the sysctl would/should only exist if the kernel includes
``options PTRACE''


+--------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| Paul Goyette       | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:     |
| (Retired)          | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul%whooppee.com@localhost     |
| Software Developer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette%netbsd.org@localhost   |
+--------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+