linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] uprobes: Change uprobe_copy_process() to dup return

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:45:48 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>,
	David Smith <dsmith@...hat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Martin Cermak <mcermak@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] uprobes: Change uprobe_copy_process() to dup
 return_instances

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> uprobe_copy_process() assumes that the new child doesn't need
> ->utask, it should be allocated by demand.
> 
> But this is not true if the forking task has the pending ret-
> probes, the child should report them as well and thus it needs
> the copy of parent's ->return_instances chain. Otherwise the
> child crashes when it returns from the probed function.

So children don't automagically inherit the same probes (only though the
high level interface -- like perf), so wouldn't simply fixing up the
child stack be a solution?

If not; its not entirely clear to my why this isn't a good solution
based on these changelogs.
--
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/