linux-kernel - Re: [ 020/184] ptrace: ensure arch_ptrace/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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130607104640.GA30017@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:46:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [ 020/184] ptrace: ensure arch_ptrace/ptrace_request can never

On 06/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/05, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >
> >  /* Ensure that nothing can wake it up, even SIGKILL */
> > -static bool ptrace_freeze_traced(struct task_struct *task)
> > +static bool ptrace_freeze_traced(struct task_struct *task, int kill)
> >  {
> > -	bool ret = false;
> > +	bool ret = true;
> >  
> >  	spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> > -	if (task_is_traced(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task)) {
> > +	if (task_is_stopped(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
> >  		task->state = __TASK_TRACED;
> > -		ret = true;
> > +	else if (!kill) {
> > +		if (task_is_traced(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
> > +			task->state = __TASK_TRACED;
> > +		else
> > +			ret = false;
> >  	}
> >  	spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> >  
> > @@ -131,7 +135,7 @@ int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, int kill)
> >  		 * child->sighand can't be NULL, release_task()
> >  		 * does ptrace_unlink() before __exit_signal().
> >  		 */
> > -		if (kill || ptrace_freeze_traced(child))
> > +		if (ptrace_freeze_traced(child, kill))
> >  			ret = 0;
> 
> I can't apply this patch, probably I misread it...
> 
> But it looks very wrong. It seems that ptrace_freeze_traced(kill => true)
> always succeeds? Even if task is TASK_RUNNING/UNINTERRUPTIBLE/etc ?

I am sorry for noise!

Yes I misread the patch. Now I actually applied both patches and
I believe the fix is fine.

ptrace_freeze_traced(kill => true) succeeds, but this is correct.
Somehow I confused this case with !kill.

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/