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 16:51:36 +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 02/14, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 09 February 2011 22:25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But yes: this is what the current code does, I am not sure we can
> > change this, and both PTRACE_CONT-doesnt-resume-until-SIGCONT and
> > PTRACE_CONT-acts-as-SIGCONT are not "perfect" too.
>
> Can you enumerate reasons why each of them are not perfect?
> I want to understand your thinking better here.

Standard answer: this can break things ;)

Also, PTRACE_CONT-acts-as-SIGCONT looks a bit ugly, it can wakeup
other tracees (or we can turn them into TASK_TRACED, I dunno).

> > Yes, and this race is already here, ptracer should take care.
>
> From the API POV, there is no race,

Sorry for confusion... I just meant that if the tracee is TASK_STOPPED
then ptrace(PTRACE_WHATEVER) can always fail if it races with SIGCONT
from the third party.

> > > In either case, the fundamentals of ptrace operation don't really
> > > change.  All ptrace operations are still per-task and ptracer almost
> > > always has control over execution of the tracee.  Sure, it allows
> > > ptraced task to escape group stop but it seems defined clear enough
> > > and IMHO actually is a helpful debugging feature.
> >
> > Heh, I think we found the place where we can't convince each other.
> > What if we toss a coin?
>
> I'm with Oleg on this. If debugger wants to terminate group-stop,
> it should just send SIGCONT, not depend on the obscure feature (it is not
> documented, right?) that PTRACE_CONT somehow affects group-stop state.

Yes, this is PTRACE_CONT-doesnt-resume-until-SIGCONT suggested by Roland.

But Tejun rightly points this can confuse gdb (and nobody knows what
else ;) Can we do this change and require the applications to learn
the new rules? I do not know.

> > I hate this from the time when I noticed that the application doesn't
> > respond to ^Z under strace. And I used strace exactly because I wanted
> > do debug some (I can't recall exactly) problems with jctl. That is all.
>
> Recently I had exactly this experience too. It's frustrating.

Agreed.

> You just succeeded :)

Thanks ;)

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/