[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:05:23 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dvlasenk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in
'data' parameter
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:17:47PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > There are places which assume ->ptrace is protected by siglock.
>
> Really? Once again, I agree. But _afaics_ currently this is not strictly
> needed. PT_PTRACED/PT_SEIZED should not go away under ->siglock, yes, but
> it seems that it is fine to set them.
Hmmm.... I haven't checked each direction. Maybe we don't strictly
need it on setting it but I definitely was assuming that ->ptrace was
protected by siglock while coding recent ptrace changes. Can't the
following happen?
* ptracer seizes child, sets PT_PTRACED and then OR PT_SEIZED.
* ptracee enters signal delivery path with group stop scheduled.
PT_PTRACED is visible and group stop is transformed into
JOBCTL_TRAP_STOP.
* ptracee enters do_jobct_trap(). PT_SEIZED is still not visible and
it takes the path for the old behavior.
* ptracer SEIZE'd and expects PTRACE_EVENT_STOP but it gets the old
no-siginfo trap.
> > and linking are protected by siglock
>
> Hmm. Could you explain this? Why do want __ptrace_link under ->siglock ?
Because it's much simpler to assume that w/ siglock locked, everything
including ->parent is set up properly w.r.t. ->ptrace.
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