On Wednesday, July 31, 2024 02:18 EEST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 16:09, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > + task = get_proc_task(file_inode(file));
> > > + if (task) {
> > > + ptrace_active = task->ptrace && task->mm == mm && task->parent == current;
> >
> > Do we need to call "read_lock(&tasklist_lock);" ?
> > see comments in ptrace_check_attach() of kernel/ptrace.c
>
> Well, technically I guess the tasklist_lock should be taken.
>
> Practically speaking, maybe just using READ_ONCE() for these fields
> would really be sufficient.
>
> Yes, it could "race" with the task exiting or just detaching, but the
> logic would basically be "at one point we were tracing it", and since
> this fundamentally a "one-point" situation (with the actual _accesses_
> happening later anyway), logically that should be sufficient.
>
> I mean - none of this is about "permissions" per se. We actually did
> the proper *permission* check at open() time regardless of all this
> code. This is more of a further tightening of the rules (ie it has
> gone from "are we allowed to ptrace" to "are we actually actively
> ptracing".
>
> I suspect that the main difference between the two situations is
> probably (a) one extra step required and (b) whatever extra system
> call security things people might have which may disable an actual
> ptrace() or whatever..
Either approach is fine with me.
Will leave v4 a few days longer in case others have a stronger
opinion or to gather & address more feedback.
If no one objects by then, I'll send v5 with READ_ONCE().
