[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5627062B.5010400@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:27:39 +0300
From: Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
To: syzkaller@...glegroups.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Robert Swiecki <swiecki@...gle.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] wait/ptrace: always assume __WALL if the child is
traced
On 21.10.2015 01:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:17:54 +0200 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> The following program (simplified version of generated by syzkaller)
>>
>> #include <pthread.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <sys/ptrace.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <signal.h>
>>
>> void *thread_func(void *arg)
>> {
>> ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0,0,0);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> pthread_t thread;
>>
>> if (fork())
>> return 0;
>>
>> while (getppid() != 1)
>> ;
>>
>> pthread_create(&thread, NULL, thread_func, NULL);
>> pthread_join(thread, NULL);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> creates the unreapable zombie if /sbin/init doesn't use __WALL.
>>
>> This is not a kernel bug, at least in a sense that everything works as
>> expected: debugger should reap a traced sub-thread before it can reap
>> the leader, but without __WALL/__WCLONE do_wait() ignores sub-threads.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that /sbin/init in most (all?) distributions
>> doesn't use it and we have to change the kernel to avoid the problem.
>
> Well, to fix this a distro needs to roll out a new kernel. Or a new
> init(8). Is there any reason to believe that distributing/deploying a
> new kernel is significantly easier for everyone? Because fixing init
> sounds like a much preferable solution to this problem.
Patched kernel allows to run obsoleted distro inside containers.
--
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