linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang after PTRACE

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTik1+XVrkwTouERoxF2AWYyv-UCqie_Wq3OLjoXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:16:48 +0100
From:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, jan.kratochvil@...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, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> * group-stop state is currently not preserved across ptrace-stop.
>>   This makes, in particular, ^Z and SIGSTOP inoperative for straced
>>   programs. Everyone agrees this needs to be fixed.
>>   (There is a small bug of not notifying real parent about the group-stop,
>>   I don't want to go there since it is also non-contentious - everybody
>>   is in agreement this also should be fixed in "obvious" way).
>
> Yeap, we do agree on this one, unfortunately not on how yet.
>
>> * HOWEVER, this behavior _is_ indeed used by gdb to run small fragments
>>   of tracee even if it's stopped. Jan's example:
>>     # gdb -p applicationpid
>>     (gdb) print getpid()
>>     (gdb) print show_me_your_internal_debug_dump()
>>     (gdb) continue
>>   gdb people want to preserve this feature.
>>   How gdb implements this? I ssume it does this by modifying IP,
>>   setting a breakpoint on return address, and issues PTRACE_CONT(0).
>>   Currently it works because of "group-stop is ignored under ptrace" bug.
>
> I don't think it works because of "group-stop is ignored under ptrace"
> bug.

How so?
Imagine the following: tracee was stopped (two cases: it was stopped
before we attached to it, or it was stopped by SIGSTOP during debug session),
and we do run on a hypothetical kernel which preserves group-stop.
At this point, in gdb user does this:

(gdb) print getpid()

gdb modifies IP, sets breakpoint on return address, and issues PTRACE_CONT(0).
Kernel has to put the tracee into group-stop, right?
Becuase if it doesn't, if it makes tracee run, then the kernel is
still broken. For example,
stracing a program and sending SIGSTOP on it won't work: the sequence
of events will be
got SIGSTOP because SIGSTOP was delivered
PTRACE_SYSCALL(SIGSTOP) - "inject it"
got SIGSTOP because tracee is in group-stop now
PTRACE_SYSCALL(SIGSTOP) - equivalent to PTRACE_SYSCALL(0)
  because we aren't in signal delivery ptrace-stop
and tracee continues.

That's why I think gdb's "print getpid()" today depends on the bug.
If we simply fix the bug (by making PTRACE_CONT/SYSCALL(0)
re-enter group-stop), then "print getpid()" will stop working
for stopped tracees.

> IMO, it's because ptrace is inherently per-task not
> per-task-group, which I think is the right way to do it.

Yes, it is, and I don't propose to change that.
However, I don't see how that is relevant to examples
I just described.

> Yeah, agreed and as I said multiple times I think this is by design
> and actually the better and more useful behavior, albeit slightly less
> intuitive.

As I described, current behavior breaks stracing of programs
which get SIGSTOPed or SIGTSTP'ed (^Z).
Which is pretty lame - ^Z is not exactly rare use case.

-- 
vda
--
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/