[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220414115410.GA32752@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:54:12 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tj@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs PREEMPT_RT
On 04/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:20:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >
> > > + // !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > + // wrong, needs siglock
> > > + current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX;
> > > + wake_up_bit(¤t->jobctl, ~JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX_BIT);
> > __wake_up_common_lock()
> > spin_lock_irqsave()
> > current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state();
OOPS, thanks.
> Something that might work; since there's only the one ptracer, is to
> instead do something like:
>
> current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX; // siglock
> if (current->ptrace)
> wake_up_process(current->parent);
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> schedule();
>
>
> vs
>
> for (;;) {
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (!(p->jobctl & JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX))
> break;
> schedule();
Yes, thanks... this is racy, see below, but probably fixeable.
> ptrace_detach() needs some additional magic as well I think, but this
> might just work.
I don't think so, JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX must be always cleared in ptrace_stop()
and ptrace_detach() implies ptrace_check_attach().
Lets forget about the proble above for the moment. There is another problem
with my patch,
if (!(child->ptrace && child->parent == current))
return ret;
this check is racy without tasklist, we can race with another task attaching
to our natural child (so that child->parent == current), ptrace_attach() sets
task->ptrace = flags first and changes child->parent after that.
In this case:
if (ignore_state)
return 0;
this is just wrong,
if (wait_on_bit(&task->jobctl, JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX_BIT, TASK_KILLABLE))
return -EINTR;
this is fine,
if (!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED))
this not right too. wait_task_inactive() can loop "forever" doing schedule_hrtimeout()
if the actual debugger stops/resumes the tracee continuously. This is pure theoretical,
but still.
And this also means that the code above needs some changes too, we can rely on
wake_up_process(current->parent).
OK, let me think about it. Thanks!
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists