[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101128203000.GD12896@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:30:00 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"rjw@...k.plpavel"@ucw.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] ptrace: make group stop notification reliable
against ptrace
On 11/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Group stop notifications are unreliable if one or more tasks of the
> task group are being ptraced. If a ptraced task ends up finishing a
> group stop, the notification is sent to the ptracer and the real
> parent never gets notified.
Yes. I do not even know if this is bug or not, but certainly I agree,
this doesn't look very nice.
> if (likely(!task_ptrace(current))) {
> + bool do_notify = false;
> +
> + if (sig->flags & SIGNAL_NOTIFY_STOP) {
> + sig->flags &= ~SIGNAL_NOTIFY_STOP;
> + do_notify = true;
> + }
> +
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> - if (notify) {
> + if (do_notify) {
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> - do_notify_parent_cldstop(current, notify);
> + do_notify_parent_cldstop(current, CLD_STOPPED);
This can race with ptrace_attach() in between.
IOW, this notification can go to the new tracer anyway.
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