[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF3B02B.3030500@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:52:43 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] ptrace: make group stop notification reliable against
ptrace
Hello,
On 11/28/2010 09:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
Hmmm, okay, we should hold both locks when checking for notification
to remove that race, or we can just tell do_notify_parent_cldstop()
which parent to use.
--
tejun
--
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