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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:57:30 +0100
From:	Petr Tesarik <>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <>,
	Roland McGrath <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent sending wrong signals to a traced process whose
 tracer gets killed

Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Hi,
> I experienced troubles when tracing a process with strace. Sometimes,
> when I killed the strace process (SIGKILL), the traced process was also
> killed. I found out that it was getting SIGTRAP and, indeed, when the
> traced process set up a signal handler for SIGTRAP, it no longer died.
> I noticed that normally, when the traced process is continued (via
> PTRACE_CONT or similar), the signal to be sent to it is stored in
> current->exit_code, which is then examined by the arch-specific code and
> usually leads to something like:
>                 send_sig(current->exit_code, current, 1);
> The exit_code is set in ptrace_stop(), but the tracing process may go
> away while the traced process waits for it, and in that case exit_code
> is left as-is. I think we must set it to zero in ptrace_untrace().

My patch was very wrong, but at least I produced a test case. It fails
on all systems I could test. The only correct solution (TM) could be
achieved if we could tell the tracee in ptrace_stop() that the tracer
actually died and it should use nostop_code instead of exit_code.
Possibly a new flag?

Petr Tesarik

View attachment "tracerkill.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (3891 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists