linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs PREEMPT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:53:37 +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 v2 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs
 PREEMPT_RT

On 04/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> @@ -1329,8 +1337,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(ptrace, long, request, l
>  		goto out_put_task_struct;
>  
>  	ret = arch_ptrace(child, request, addr, data);
> -	if (ret || request != PTRACE_DETACH)
> -		ptrace_unfreeze_traced(child);
> +	ptrace_unfreeze_traced(child);

Forgot to mention... whatever we do this doesn't look right.

ptrace_unfreeze_traced() must not be called if the tracee was untraced,
anothet debugger can come after that. I agree, the current code looks
a bit confusing, perhaps it makes sense to re-write it:

	if (request == PTRACE_DETACH && ret == 0)
		; /* nothing to do, no longer traced by us */
	else
		ptrace_unfreeze_traced(child);

Oleg.