[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110508133543.GA4820@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 15:35:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ptrace] ptrace: fix signal->wait_chldexit usage in
task_clear_group_stop_trapping()
On 05/06, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING waiting mechanism piggybacks on
> signal->wait_chldexit which is primarily used to implement waiting for
> wait(2) and friends. When do_wait() waits on signal->wait_chldexit,
> it uses a custom wake up callback, child_wait_callback(), which
> expects the child task which is waking up the parent to be passed in
> as @key to filter out spurious wakeups.
>
> task_clear_group_stop_trapping() used __wake_up_sync() which uses NULL
> @key causing the following oops if the parent was doing do_wait().
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000000000002d8
> IP: [<ffffffff810499f9>] child_wait_callback+0x29/0x80
Argh! Shame on me. Somehow I convinced myself that this needs the cleanup
but safe because we are not going to wake up the TASK_INTTERRUPTIBLE tasks
sleeping in do_wait(). Somehow I forgot that wait_queue_t->func() is called
anyway without checking "mode". I even specially mentioned this should be
safe during the review ;)
> I still think it's a mistake to piggyback on wait_chldexit for this.
Agreed. Previously I thought we should teach __wake_up_parent() to wake
up the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks, now I think this is not needed.
> Given the relative low frequency of ptrace use, we would be much
> better off leaving already complex wait_chldexit alone and using bit
> waitqueue.
Well, I don't think so. wait_on_bit() looks as unnecessary complication
to me. See below.
> --- work.orig/kernel/signal.c
> +++ work/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -238,8 +238,8 @@ static void task_clear_group_stop_trappi
> {
> if (unlikely(task->group_stop & GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING)) {
> task->group_stop &= ~GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING;
> - __wake_up_sync(&task->parent->signal->wait_chldexit,
> - TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 1);
> + __wake_up_sync_key(&task->parent->signal->wait_chldexit,
> + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 1, task);
> }
> }
I believe this is correct and should fix the problem.
But. Why do we need signal->wait_chldexit or bit waitqueue at all?
Previously this was needed because wait_event(!GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING)
was called from ptrace_check_attach(), and the tracer can do anything
after ptrace_attach() which sets GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING.
With the current code we know that GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING means: the
tracer can't go away from ptrace_attach() until we clear this bit.
How about the patch below instead?
Hmm. This is minor and off-topic, but perhaps it makes sense to move
the code which sets/waits GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING from ptrace_attach() to
the separate function, it can be called outside of tasklist_lock and
cred_guard_mutex.
And. Could you remind why ptrace_attach() does signal_wake_up() instead
of wake_up_state(TASK_STOPPED) ? OK, in general we shouldn't set
GROUP_STOP_PENDING without TIF_SIGPENDING, but in this case?
Oleg.
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -256,9 +256,16 @@ unlock_tasklist:
unlock_creds:
mutex_unlock(&task->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
out:
- if (wait_trap)
- wait_event(current->signal->wait_chldexit,
- !(task->group_stop & GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING));
+ if (wait_trap) {
+ for (;;) {
+ set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ if (!(task->group_stop & GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING))
+ break;
+ schedule();
+ }
+ __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ }
+
return retval;
}
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -238,8 +238,7 @@ static void task_clear_group_stop_trappi
{
if (unlikely(task->group_stop & GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING)) {
task->group_stop &= ~GROUP_STOP_TRAPPING;
- __wake_up_sync(&task->parent->signal->wait_chldexit,
- TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 1);
+ wake_up_process(task->parent);
}
}
--
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