On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 21:42 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 12:59 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:56 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > >> Shaohua Li wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 09:11 -0600, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> > >>>> Anything that avoids complicating the kernel exit path is worth doing!
> > >>>> The exit path is complicated enough as it is.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --david
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 9/7/07, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >>>>> Hash: SHA1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Shaohua Li wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 15:59 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > >>>>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>> So, what happens if upon syscall entry notification the debugger
> > >>>>>>> modifies the part of the RBS (in user-space) which corresponds to the
> > >>>>>>> arguments of that syscall? Currently, the syscall takes the modified
> > >>>>>>> arguments, but with your change it would still take the stale data
> > >>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>> the kernel RBS.
> > >>>>>> The patch does sync from user RBS to kernel RBS just after syscall trace
> > >>>>>> enter. this is an exception I said doing sync just before syscall
> > >>>>>> return. I thought this covers your case, no?
> > >>>>> Ah, I'm sorry, I missed that part of the patch. Well, if we have to do a
> > >>>>> sync on every syscall_trace_enter() and syscall_trace_leave(), then the
> > >>>>> only cases where introducing TIF_RESTORE_RSE saves us a duplicate sync
> > >>>>> seems to be in the clone/fork and exit paths. In other words, it's
> > >>>>> probably not worth the added complexity. But since you have written the
> > >>>>> whole complex thing already, I have no objections against it.
> > >>> Ok, this is a simplified patch. please review.
> > >> Well, it's been quite some time, but here we go.
> > >>
> > >> I'm generally fine with this patch, but pleas note that it can't be
> > >> included on its own:
> > >>
> > >> 1. There still is the race condition introduced by moving
> > >> set_current_state(TASK_TRACED) after the spin_unlock_irq
> > > I don't know the details, but Roland said if other parts are ok, he can help fix the issue.
> > >
> > >> 2. You must couple it with the (planned) changes to the ptrace,
> > >> because otherwise PTRACE_{PEEK,POKE}{TEXT,DATA} still access the kernel
> > >> RBS, but it gets later overwritten back from userspace when it is synced.
> > >
> > >> I have verified that failing to do so breaks "strace -f", because
> > >> strace
> > >> relies on intercepting the clone() system call and setting the
> > >> CLONE_PTRACE bit in the flags argument. Of course, if the bit is only
> > >> set in the kernel RBS, which is overwritten with the (old) value from
> > >> the user RBS on a PTRACE_CONT, the new process is not traced.
> > > The patch sync kernel RBS to user just before the task is suspended, so
> > > I think we should be fine here. I did test 'strace -f', and test is ok.
> >
> > Maybe you're right. I was porting this to 2.6.16 for SUSE Linux
> > Enterprise Server 10, so my patch was a bit different. I'll retest with
> > latest git. Nevertheless, I still think that ia64_poke() can't do the
> > right thing here, because the changes made by PTRACE_PEEKDATA should
> > also be visible in /proc/<pid>/mem, for example.
>
> OK, I retested everything again with 2.6.23 and I can confirm that the
> kernel behaves consistently with this patch applied - modifying syscall
> arguments works (both for break and for fsyscalls), changes are refleced
> in /proc/<pid>/mem and accessing the RNAT bits works too.
>
> I would still like to get rid of ia64_peek() and ia64_poke(), because it
> is no longer needed and is inefficient. For example, currently each
> PTRACE_POKE first non-trivially finds out the correct location within
> the kernel RBS and then immediately synchronizes the RBS to user space.
> Not to mention that for peeking/poking a process with more threads the
> kernel must first find the correct thread for a given address.
>
> Shaohua's patch allows us to greatly simplify the architecture-specific
> bits of ptrace. I'll send a patch soon.
>
> In short, you've got my ack (whatever it's worth).
Thanks. So Tony, how do think about the IA64 part of the patch?
Thanks,
Shaohua
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|