[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whLqbTNc1T+rHCm-kxbVAuhK3hjo5fOgDVf5-z--x1mvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 10:28:13 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@...icios.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND2] ptrace: make ptrace() fail if the tracee changed
its pid unexpectedly
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:56 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> This patch makes ptrace() fail in this case until debugger does wait()
> and consumes PTHREAD_EVENT_EXEC which reports old_pid.
I'm ok with the patch, just wondering which way it's supposed to come
to me. Should I just apply it directly?
That said, why this:
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + pid = task_pid_nr_ns(task, task_active_pid_ns(task->parent));
> + rcu_read_unlock();
I don't see why the RCU read lock would be needed? task_pid_nr_ns()
does any required locking itself, afaik.
And even if it wasn't, this all happens with siglock held, can
anything actually change.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists