[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090209012824.GA26461@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 02:28:24 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, for 2.6.29] ptrace: fix the usage of ptrace_fork()
On 02/09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I noticed by pure accident we have ptrace_fork() and friends. This was
> added by "x86, bts: add fork and exit handling", commit
> bf53de907dfdaac178c92d774aae7370d7b97d20
Hmm. Looks like we have more problems here...
"x86, bts: memory accounting", commit c5dee6177f4bd2095aab7d9be9f6ebdddd6deee9.
PTRACE_BTS_CONFIG allocates ->bts_buffer via alloc_locked_buffer()
which updates mm->total_vm/locked_vm.
ptrace_detach() does free_locked_buffer() which "restores" mm->xxx_vm.
But if the tracer exits we are doing __ptrace_unlink()->ptrace_bts_untrace()
which uses a plain kfree(), in that case we don't update mm->xxx_vm ?
Note that the exiting tracer can have sub-threads, so the whole process
does not necessary dies.
Or, the tracer can reap a zombie tracee without PTRACE_DETACH, in that
case we don't update ->mm too.
Oh, and afaics ptrace_detach()->ptrace_bts_detach() can race with the
tracer's sub-thread which does do_wait()->release_task() (if the tracee
was killed before detach takes tasklist), the kernel can crash in this
case.
Unless I missed something, This all looks rather wrong, and I wasn't
aware about these changes :(
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists