linux-kernel - Re: Race in 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:	Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:10:26 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>
Cc:	taviso@...gle.com, Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Race in ptrace.

On 02/11, Salman Qazi wrote:
>
> I understand what it does.  But, why is it the right thing to do?

Oh. Let's not discuss the current API. Nobody thinks it is great,
but we can't change it.

But,

> From the user's perspective, why should the task become untraced if we
> use ptrace to deliver the signal?

The task does not become untraced. The tracer (in your test-case)
explicitly asks the tracee to respect SIGSTOP and stop.

> Doesn't this make it impossible to
> intercept and control which signals are sent to a traced task?

Why? The tracee reports all signals. If the tracer does
ptrace(PTRACE_WHATEVER, SIGXXX) surely it knows SIGXXX is sent to
tracee.

In any case. This is how ptrace currently works, there is no race
and the patch is not needed (in fact it is very wrong, but this
soesn't matter).

Do you agree?

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/