[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sfpy42b0.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:57:39 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de,
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
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> 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);
This was a bug in my original JOBCTL_DELAY_WAITKILL patch and it was
just cut and pasted here. I thought it made sense when I was throwing
things together but when I looked more closely I realized that it is
not safe.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists