Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] ptrace: Admit ptrace_stop can generate spuriuos SIGTRAPs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] ptrace: Admit ptrace_stop can generate spuriuos SIGTRAPs
- From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:01:59 +0200
- Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx, dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx, rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, mgorman@xxxxxxx, bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, tj@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Zankel <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-xtensa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20220504224058.476193-8-ebiederm@xmission.com>
- References: <87k0b0apne.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <20220504224058.476193-8-ebiederm@xmission.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> With the removal of the incomplete detection of the tracer going away
> in ptrace_stop, ptrace_stop always sleeps in schedule after
> ptrace_freeze_traced succeeds. Modify ptrace_check_attach to
> warn if wait_task_inactive fails.
Oh. Again, I don't understand the changelog. If we forget about RT,
ptrace_stop() will always sleep if ptrace_freeze_traced() succeeds.
may_ptrace_stop() has gone.
IOW. Lets forget about RT
> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -266,17 +266,9 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, bool ignore_state)
> }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> - if (!ret && !ignore_state) {
> - if (!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)) {
> - /*
> - * This can only happen if may_ptrace_stop() fails and
> - * ptrace_stop() changes ->state back to TASK_RUNNING,
> - * so we should not worry about leaking __TASK_TRACED.
> - */
> - WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(child->__state) == __TASK_TRACED);
> - ret = -ESRCH;
> - }
> - }
> + if (!ret && !ignore_state &&
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)))
> + ret = -ESRCH;
>
> return ret;
> }
Why do you think this change would be wrong without any other changes?
Oleg.
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]