linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/5] uprobes: add global breakpoints

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: <502A39FC.4070603@linutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:43:56 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakaynahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	stan_shebs@...tor.com, gdb-patches@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] uprobes: add global breakpoints

On 08/13/2012 03:16 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/09, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>
>> * Oleg Nesterov | 2012-08-08 15:14:57 [+0200]:
>>
>>>> What I miss right now is an interface to tell the user/gdb that there is a
>>>> program that hit a global breakpoint and is waiting for further instructions.
>>>> A "tail -f trace" does not work and may contain also a lot of other
>>>> informations. I've been thinking about a poll()able file which returns pids of
>>>> tasks which are put on hold. Other suggestions?
>>>
>>> Honestly, I am not sure this is that useful...
>>
>> How would you notify gdb that there is a new task that hit a breakpoint?
>> Or learn yourself?
>
> But why do we need this?

Shouldn't we learn somehow that a process hits a breakpoint? The task
was not yet monitored by gdb.

> OK, you do not need to convince me, I try to never argue with
> new features.

If there is a simple mechanism, I would switch to it. Right now I think
about using this "notification mechanism" to auto-exlude the listener
(and its parents) from the list of possible targets. So I don't freeze
the whole system while I have a breakpoint at malloc() in libc.

> However, I certainly dislike TASK_TRACED in uprobe_wait_traced().
> And sleeping in ->handler() is not fair to other consumers.

I added it as the last task in current consumer. I could move it out of
the consumer loop and freeze it after all consumer are handled but then
I lose the filter member (which is currently NULL, I know).

> And I do not think you should modify ptrace_attach() at all.
> gdb/user can wakeup the task after PTRACE_ATTACH itself.

I see. gdb / strace --pid $num" gdb does PTRACE_ATTACH and waits
afterwords in wait() indefinitely for the SIGSTOP which is blocked
since the process is already in TASK_TRACED. This is nice since the
signals are blocked and are delivered once the task is unfrozed.

> Oleg.

Sebastian
--
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/