linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in data parameter

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]

Message-ID: <20110907170212.GB5176@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:02:12 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in data
	parameter

On 09/07, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in data parameter

Personally I think this makes sense, and in fact I suggested this
from the very beginning.

Oh. But since we are goin to establish the API rules, this should
be discussed.

IIRC, Tejun disliked this idea. Tejun?

>  	retval = -EIO;
> -	if (seize && !(flags & PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL))
> -		goto out;
> +	if (seize) {
> +		if ((flags & ~(long)PTRACE_O_MASK) != PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL)
> +			goto out;
> +		flags &= ~PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL;
> +	} else
> +		flags = 0;

Personally I do not care, but this is against the coding-style rules. This
should be

	} else {
		flags = 0;
	}

Or, better,

	flags = 0;
	if (seize) {
		flags = ...
	}

> @@ -263,7 +267,7 @@ static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task, long request,
>  	if (task->ptrace)
>  		goto unlock_tasklist;
>
> -	task->ptrace = PT_PTRACED;
> +	task->ptrace = PT_PTRACED | (flags << PT_OPT_FLAG_SHIFT);
>  	if (seize)
>  		task->ptrace |= PT_SEIZED;

Hmm. Tejun, Denys, this doesn't look exactly right.

I already thought about this before, but somehow I convinced myself
this is fine.

I think we should set both PT_PTRACED | PT_SEIZED "atomically", at
once. Otherwise, say, the tracee can do do_jobctl_trap() in between,
no? Nothing really bad can happen, but we shouldn't lose EVENT_STOP
code.

IOW, I think we need the small fix before this patch.

Oleg.

--
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/