[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210427062619.GB10986@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:26:20 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ptrace: make ptrace() fail if the tracee changed
its pid unexpectedly
Hi Mathieu,
On 04/26, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > The patch doesn't add the new PTRACE_ option to not complicate the API,
> > and I _hope_ this won't cause any noticeable regression:
> >
> > - If debugger uses PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC and the thread did an exec
> > and the tracer does a ptrace request without having consumed
> > the exec event, it's 100% sure that the thread the ptracer
> > thinks it is targeting does not exist anymore, or isn't the
> > same as the one it thinks it is targeting.
> >
> > - To some degree this patch adds nothing new. In the scenario
> > above ptrace(L) can fail with -ESRCH if it is called after the
> > execing sub-thread wakes the leader up and before it "steals"
> > the leader's pid.
>
> Hi Oleg,
>
> Is this something that should also target stable kernels ? AFAIU this change
> won't break debuggers more that they are already in this scenario. Or maybe
> it makes them fail in more obvious ways ?
Well, I am not sure this is stable material...
To me the problem is minor, and the patch adds the user-visible change.
I think it would be safer to not add stable tag.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists