[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201102618.GE14211@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:26:18 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH] ptrace: use safer wake up on ptrace_detach()
The wake_up_process() call in ptrace_detach() is spurious and not
interlocked with the tracee state. IOW, the tracee could be running
or sleeping in any place in the kernel by the time wake_up_process()
is called. This can lead to the tracee waking up unexpectedly which
can be dangerous.
The wake_up is spurious and should be removed but for now reduce its
toxicity by only waking up if the tracee is in TRACED or STOPPED
state.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: stable@...nel.org
---
So, something like this. Roland, Oleg, can you guys please ack this?
Also, should these ptrace patches be routed? Shall I set up a git
tree?
Thank you.
kernel/ptrace.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: work/kernel/ptrace.c
===================================================================
--- work.orig/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ work/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ int ptrace_detach(struct task_struct *ch
child->exit_code = data;
dead = __ptrace_detach(current, child);
if (!child->exit_state)
- wake_up_process(child);
+ wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED | TASK_STOPPED);
}
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
--
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