[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110520090718.GC31426@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:07:18 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
Hello, Pedro.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:00:17AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > UUIC, that opens a race where between SEIZEing and
> > > SETOPTIONS(O_TRACE FORK|VFORK|EXEC...), the tracee can
> > > fork/vfork/clone/exec, without the tracer getting the
> > > nice corresponding PTRACE_EVENT_ events.
Does it matter? The order of execution isn't even well defined
without synchronization border. If you want full synchronization, you
can INTERRUPT tracee.
> SEIZE,execvd,INTERRUPT (SETOPTS on interrupt)
>
> will make the tracer see a SIGTRAP that
>
> execvd,SEIZE,INTERRUPT
>
> nor
>
> SEIZE,SETOPTS,execvd (SETOPTS on interrupt)
>
> would cause, isn't it?
Yes, SIGTRAP on exec(2) is nasty but also is scheduled to be removed
if SEIZED.
> Now, if it were possible for the tracer to set the
> default OPTS _before_ PTRACE_ATTACH/PTRACE_SEIZE...
I don't see why that would be necessary.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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