linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang after PTRACE

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:	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:31:49 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang after
	PTRACE_ATTACH

On 02/13, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 09 February 2011 15:18, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > > > and I'm not really sure whether that's something worth achieving
> > > > at the cost of debugging capabilities especially when we don't _have_
> > > > to lose them.
> > >
> > > But we do not? I mean, at least this is not worse than the current
> > > behaviour.
> >
> > I think it's worse.  With your changes, debuggers can't diddle the
> > tasks behind group stop's back which the current users already expect.
>
> But this "diddling behind group stop's back" is exactly the current
> problem with stop signals.
>
> Here I try to stop a ptraced process:
>
> $ strace -tt sleep 30
> 23:02:15.619262 execve("/bin/sleep", ["sleep", "30"], [/* 30 vars */]) = 0
> ...
> 23:02:15.622112 nanosleep({30, 0}, NULL) = ? ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK (To be restarted)
> 23:02:23.781165 --- SIGSTOP (Stopped (signal)) @ 0 (0) ---
> 23:02:23.781251 --- SIGSTOP (Stopped (signal)) @ 0 (0) ---
>     (I forgot again why we see it twice. Another quirk I guess...)

      (this is correct, the tracee reports the signal=SIGSTOP, then
       it reports it actually stopps with exit_code=SIGSTOP)

> 23:02:23.781310 restart_syscall(<... resuming interrupted call ...>) = 0
> 23:02:45.622433 close(1)                = 0
> 23:02:45.622743 close(2)                = 0
> 23:02:45.622885 exit_group(0)           = ?
>
> Why sleep didn't stop?

Yes. And I think this all should be fixed.

Although, depending on how we change the kernel, strace may need the
fixes too.

> Because PTRACE_SYSCALL brought the task out of group stop at once,
> even though strace did try hard to not do so:
>
>     ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, $PID, 0x1, SIGSTOP) <-- note SIGSTOP!

Yes.

(just to clarify, data=SIGSTOP has no effect when the tracee reports
 from do_signal_stop. iow, when it reports i-am-stopped)

But otherwise I agree, and that was my point too.

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/