linux-kernel - [PATCH -mm 0/2] fix do_wait(!__WALL) hang (Was: mmotm 2009-08-24-16-24 uploaded)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:22:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH -mm 0/2] fix do_wait(!__WALL) hang (Was: mmotm
	2009-08-24-16-24 uploaded)

On 08/28, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > eligible_child:
> >
> > 	/* Wait for all children (clone and not) if __WALL is set;
> > 	 * otherwise, wait for clone children *only* if __WCLONE is
> > 	 * set; otherwise, wait for non-clone children *only*.  (Note:
> > 	 * A "clone" child here is one that reports to its parent
> > 	 * using a signal other than SIGCHLD.) */
> >
> > 	if (((p->exit_signal != SIGCHLD) ^ !!(wo->wo_flags & __WCLONE))
> > 	    && !(wo->wo_flags & __WALL))
> > 		return 0;
> >
> > I just can't understand what is the supposed behaviour when p is
> > sub-thread and p->exit_signal == -1.
>
> As you say, you're not even supposed to be here when exit_signal = -1,
> except for the ptrace case.  This logic exists for the non-CLONE_THREAD
> clone case, i.e. ->exit_signal != SIGCHLD and != -1.
>
> > IOW, perhaps this check should be
> >
> > 	if (!task_detached(p) && !(wo->wo_flags & __WALL) &&
> > 	    (p->exit_signal != SIGCHLD) ^ !!(wo->wo_flags & __WCLONE))
> > 		return 0;
>
> That seems OK to me.

And this looks more right...

> > In short. If ptracer calls wait4(ptraced_sub_thread), is it really
> > supposed it must use __WCLONE || __WALL?
>
> I suspect not, but I'm not quite sure.  That is, it makes sense to me that
> a ptracer should always get its tracees in all waits.  That is consistent
> with not having to use WUNTRACED, for example.  But I'm not really sure any
> more what the historical behavior of this has been.

Yes. Let's not change this code. This is user-visible, might break something.
I think it is better to make more "safe" fix.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/