[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101108145647.GA3426@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:56:47 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Q: perf_event && task->ptrace_bps[]
Hello.
I am trying to understand the usage of hw-breakpoints in arch_ptrace().
ptrace_set_debugreg() and related code looks obviously racy. Nothing
protects us against flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() called by the dying
tracee. Afaics we can leak perf_event or use the already freed memory
or both.
Am I missed something?
Looking into the git history, I don't even know which patch should be
blamed (if I am right), there were too many changes. I noticed that
2ebd4ffb6d0cb877787b1e42be8485820158857e "perf events: Split out task
search into helper" moved the PF_EXITING check from find_get_context().
This check coould help if sys_ptrace() races with SIGKILL, but it was
racy anyway.
It is not clear to me what should be done. Looking more, I do not
understand the scope of perf_event/ctx at all, sys_perf_event_open()
looks wrong too, see the next email I am going to send.
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