[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110523141034.GA11866@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:10:34 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu
Subject: ptrace_resume->wake_up_process (Was: Ptrace documentation, draft
#1)
On 05/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> "does nothing" is not 100% true, it does wake_up_process() but this shouldn't
> be documented, this should be fixed.
In fact ptrace_resume()->wake_up_process() is obviously wrong anyway,
I think the patch below makes sense even for 2.6.40.
But it is much worse in PTRACE_KILL case. Just for example,
int main(void)
{
int child, status;
child = fork();
if (!child) {
int ret;
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0,0,0) == 0);
ret = pause();
printf("pause: %d %m\n", ret);
return 0x23;
}
sleep(1);
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_KILL, child, 0,0) == 0);
assert(child == wait(&status));
printf("wait: %x\n", status);
return 0;
}
leaks -ERESTARTNOHAND. Yes, we should probably fix sys_pause() as well,
it should check signal_pending(). But we shouldn't allow to wake up the
tracee in unknown state/path.
Can't understand why this wasn't fixed before... I always knew this looks
wrong, but I never sent the patch. Probably because I never understood
the original reason for wake_up_process...
Oleg.
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static int ptrace_resume(struct task_str
}
child->exit_code = data;
- wake_up_process(child);
+ wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED);
return 0;
}
--
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