[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130723155854.GA26211@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:58:54 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH) [no intervering wait]
ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH) may leave tracee stuck
On 07/23, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> I received a report that glibc:elf/pldd hangs occasionally, and indeed..
>
> for i in `seq 1 1000`; do taskset -c 3 pldd $$ > /dev/null 2>&1; done
>
> ..will do so. Rummage.....
>
> ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH) returns -ESRCH when the trap hasn't happened yet,
> which happens because pldd doesn't wait() before ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH).
>
> pldd source:
>
[...snip...]
>
> Seems this usually works only because cycles expended between attach and
> detach is usually enough to let trap happen so tracee can set its state
> to TASK_TRACED as PTRACE_DETACH expects it to be.
>
> Is this expected behavior?
Yes. PTRACE_ATTACH + PTRACE_DETACH is not correct without wait() in
between, this is expected.
PTRACE_DETACH like (almost) any other ptrace request needs the stopped
tracee. Otherwise, say, ptrace_disable() or flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint()
are not safe.
We could probably add PTRACE_UNTRACE which only does __ptrace_unlink/etc
like the exiting tracer does. (In particular, it could help to detach a
zombie).
But note that even PTRACE_ATTACH + PTRACE_UNTRACE won't be really correct.
PTRACE_ATTACH sends SIGSTOP, so without sys_wait() in between the tracee
can stop in TASK_STOPPED.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists