[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071123102351.GD6240@localhost.sw.ru>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:23:51 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/2] ptrace_stop: fix the race with ptrace detach+attach
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 07:14:59PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> If the tracer went away (may_ptrace_stop() failed), ptrace_stop() drops tasklist
> and then changes the ->state from TASK_TRACED to TASK_RUNNING.
>
> This can fool another tracer which attaches to us in between. Change the ->state
> under tasklist_lock to ensure that ptrace_check_attach() can't wrongly succeed.
ptrace_check_attach? Both do read_lock -- can run in parallel, so how can it help?
> --- PT/kernel/signal.c~1_ptrace_stop 2007-11-21 21:41:02.000000000 +0300
> +++ PT/kernel/signal.c 2007-11-22 16:59:35.000000000 +0300
> @@ -1628,11 +1628,11 @@ static void ptrace_stop(int exit_code, i
> } else {
> /*
> * By the time we got the lock, our tracer went away.
> - * Don't stop here.
> + * Don't drop the lock yet, another tracer may come.
> */
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> - set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> current->exit_code = nostop_code;
> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> }
>
> /*
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists