| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:03:56 +0100 From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com> To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang after PTRACE_ATTACH On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:01:47 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > * sleep runs in nanosleep > * SIGSTOP arrives, strace sees it > * strace logs it and allows it via ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, ..., SIGSTOP) > * sleep process enters group-stop The last point breaks the documented behavior of ptrace: If data is nonzero and not SIGSTOP, it is interpreted as a signal to be delivered to the child; otherwise, no signal is delivered. I do not see it would affect gdb. strace will change its behavior when SIGSTOP is sent to its tracee although the new behavior may be OK. It is more a subject of apps compatibility testing with such a kernel change. > * nothing happens until some other signal arrives > * say, SIGCONT arrives What if other signal arrives? The tracer probably should not be notified as the tracee is in a group-stop. > * strace logs it and allows it via ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, ..., SIGCONT) Thanks, Jan -- 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