[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160901195051.aevh2miogutgobzk@alesak.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 21:50:51 +0200
From: Ales Novak <alnovak@...e.cz>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: clear TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE on ptrace detach
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:46:13PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/01, Ales Novak wrote:
> >
> > On ptrace_detach(), the TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE in thread->flags of the tracee
> > is not cleared up. This results in the tracehook_report_syscall_* being
> > called (though there's no longer a tracer listening to that) upon its
> > further syscalls.
> >
> > Example scenario - attach "strace" to a running process and kill it (the
> > strace) with SIGKILL. You'll see that the syscall trace hooks are still
> > being called.
>
> We do not really care, if the tracer dies the tracee can be in the
> inconsistent state anyway.
>
> > --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> > @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ void __ptrace_unlink(struct task_struct *child)
> > task_clear_jobctl_pending(child, JOBCTL_TRAP_MASK);
> > task_clear_jobctl_trapping(child);
> >
> > + clear_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
>
> OK, probably this change makes sense anyway, but then you should
> remove another clear_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE) in ptrace_detach?
You're right, sorry for not noticing that. Also my changelog was
misleading, I've tried to fix that.
>
> And I'd suggest to move this clear_tsk_thread_flag() up, before
> spin_lock(siglock). Otherwise it looks as if we should clear this flag
> with ->siglock held.
Good point also.
>
> Oleg.
>
--
Ales Novak
SUSE L3
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists