linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement 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]

Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 16:02:15 +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,

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:36:03PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2011 13:00:13, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > A couple interface questions that just crossed my mind:
> > > 
> > >  - on a fork/vfork/clone, if PTRACE_EVENT_FORK|VFORK|CLONE have been
> > >    enabled, will the tracer still see the new child stop with a
> > >    SIGSTOP, or will it see a PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT?
> > 
> > This won't change, so SIGSTOP although we probably want to improve it
> > such that this can be distinguished from SIGTRAP from userland.
> 
> (I assume you meant SIGSTOP from userland.)  So that if a SIGSTOPs
> from userland is sent before the tracer waits for the child, the
> tracer sees a siginfo corresponding to the userland SIGSTOP?  Sounds
> like it might work.

Now that thinking more about it, TRAP_STOP (INTERRUPT trap) would
probably be better.  I'll think more about it.  For fork, it doesn't
really matter but deliverying SIGSTOP on CLONE isn't too good.  From
user's POV, TRAP_STOP should work too, right?

> > I'm currently leaning toward deprecating PTRACE_TRACEME.  If a task
> > can PTRACE_TRACEME, it may as well just do pause(2) and let the parent
> > SEIZE it.
> 
> Debuggers will want to nurse the child through a couple of
> execs (shell, then real debuggee), so that scheme requires a bit
> more synchronization, because SEIZE hides the magic exec SIGTRAP,
> and so the tracer needs to set the O_TRACEXEC option before the first
> exec, and make sure external signals don't break the synchronization.
> Reading/writing to/from blocking pipes for that initial synchronization
> is what GDB uses instead for e.g., hpux/ttrace support, which looks
> similar to using PTRACE_SEIZE for PTRACE_TRACEME.  A bit more
> cumbersome, though doable, I suppose.

Yes, it would require some sort of synchronization.  I was thinking
more along the line of ptracer modifying tracee so that it exits
pause(2) loop after ptracer issues PTRACE_CONT, but I agree using
pipes would be more straight-forward.

Thank you.

-- 
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/