linux-kernel - Re: A peculiarity in ptrace/waitpid behavior

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJt8pk9_xt8L4eZ4E3zdFhzs2fPajecYdn_pbHEY0JMgd2R04w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:53:46 +0000
From:	Pavel Labath <labath@...gle.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A peculiarity in ptrace/waitpid behavior

Hi,

I have tested your patch and I can confirm that the error is gone when
running a patched kernel. Thanks for fixing this in such a short
notice.

I am still seeing one very rare failure where the SIGUSR does not
appear to be reported. However, I will need to dig around this a bit
more to make sure there is no error on our end.

Now I am thinking about how to work around these bugs, as our code
will need to run on unpatched kernels as well. As for this
ptrace/waitpid race, I think I will just refactor the code to make
wait and ptrace calls on the same thread. This should sidestep the
race, right?

Regarding your bug, I am not exactly sure what are the implications.
Could you briefly describe the situations in which this behavior can
occur? Am I correct in understanding that this is always a race
between a SIGKILL and another non-lethal signal? And that the SIGKILL
will be (eventually) reported?

cheers,
pl

On 23 March 2015 at 09:42, Pavel Labath <labath@...gle.com> wrote:
> On 21 March 2015 at 18:57, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/20, Pavel Labath wrote:
>>>
>>> One difference I see though is that in
>>> our test, we are not sending any additional signals to the thread in
>>> question (at least we shouldn't be sending them, but we are sending some
>>> signals to other threads in the same process). Do you think it could still
>>> be the same issue?
>>
>> Not sure...
>>
>> And. I found another race, which looks more promising wrt your description.
>> ptrace_resume() sets ->exit_code before it wakes the tracee up. If the
>> tracer's sub-thread calls wait() right after that, it can wrongly see
>> task_stopped_code(tracee, true) != 0, as if the tracee reports its
>> ->exit_code.
> Yes, that sounds very much like what is happening. :)
>
>
>>
>>> I would be happy to test your patch. I don't think I can patch the kernel
>>> on my work machine directly, but I think I might be able to set up some
>>> sort of a test environment to try it out.
>>
>> Thanks! could you try the patch below? It won't help my test-case, but
>> _perhaps_ it can fix the problem you hit?
> Thanks for working on this. I will get on testing this. It will take a
> while though, because the failure is quite rare and usually only shows
> up in a full test suite run, which takes over 5 minutes. :)
>
>>
>> And a couple of questions just in case...
>>
>> Which kernel version? Although probably this doesn't matter, this race
>> is very-very old.
> Linux labath 3.13.0-46-generic #79-Ubuntu SMP Tue Mar 10 20:06:50 UTC
> 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> It should be the kernel shipped with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.
>
>>
>> Let me return to your description,
>>
>>         1) we get a waitpid() notification that the tracee got SIGUSR1
>>         2) we do a ptrace(GETSIGINFO) to get more info
>>         3) eventually we decide to restart the tracee with PTRACE_CONT, passing it
>>            SIGUSR1
>>         4) immediately after that we get another waitpid notification, again with
>>            SIGUSR1,
>>
>> Does this "waitpid notification" mean that _another_ thread returns
>> from waitpid() ?
> Yes, we have one thread doing waitpid() processing in a loop, and
> another thread is issuing PTRACE requests.
>
>> And status == (SIGUSR1 << 8) | 0x7f , yes? IOW, is WIFSTOPPED() true?
>
> Exactly. The following is an excerpt from our log, which I was able to capture.
> 548 1426700116.644772000 [7295/729a]: NativeProcessLinux::Resume()
> resuming thread = 29346 with signal SIGUSR1
> 554 1426700116.644889000 [7295/729c]:
> MonitorChildProcessThreadFunction ::waitpid (pid = -29339, &status,
> options = 1073741824)...
> 555 1426700116.644896000 [7295/729c]:
> MonitorChildProcessThreadFunction ::waitpid (pid = -29339, &status,
> options = 1073741824) => pid = 29346, status = 0x00000a7f (STOPPED),
> signal = 10, exit_state = 0
> 556 1426700116.644906000 [7295/729a]: NativeProcessLinux::Resume()
> resuming thread = 29346 result = true
>
> The PTRACE_CONT call happens somewhere between lines 548 and 556,
> while the waitpid calls happens between 554 and 555. So it is quite
> possible that they are called simultaneously...
>
>
> Thanks for working on this.
>
> cheers,
> pl
--
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/