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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:41:29 +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 2:29 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 02:16:48PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> (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.
>
> There's no reason to make the tracee re-enter group stop after pulling
> it out to execute 'print getpid()'.

If we want to execute 'print getpid()', you are right, we don't want
to enter group stop. That's use case #1. But there is use case #2:
"strace sleep" + ^Z. if we want to continue stracing sleep
without continuing, our PTRACE_SYSCALL(0) *must* make sleep
enter group stop. Otherwise, sleep won't be stopped. It will
continue sleeping and will exit, which is not what we want. Right?

>  The only thing necessary is a way
> for the debugger to find out that group stop has been lifted.

What do you mean by "has been *lifted*"?

> The debugger then can resume the tracee if it wishes so.  ie. group stop
> becomes a trap point + a state which the debugger can monitor.  If the
> debugger wants the tracee to follow the jctl behavior, it can do so by
> resuming the tracee as it sees fit.

Can you describe this in more details? Do you propose that
debugger can detect that we are in group stop (it is already sort-of
possible with PTRACE_GETSIGINFO) and if it doesn't want to
restart tracee, it simply doesn't do any PTRACE_SYSCALL/CONT?
I tried that. This makes tracee sit in *ptrace* stop, not group stop.
Meaning: debugger is never be able to see waking SIGCONT:
waitpid doesn't report it to the debugger.

-- 
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/