[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220427144259.GB17421@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:43:00 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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>, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
inux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] signal: Always call do_notify_parent_cldstop with
siglock held
On 04/27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> The ptrace parental relationship definitely has the potential to be a
> graph with cycles. Which as you point out is not fine.
>
> The result is very nice and I don't want to give it up. I suspect
> something ptrace cycles are always a problem and can simply be
> forbidden.
OK, please consider another case.
We have a parent P and its child C. C traces P.
This is not that unusual, I don't think we can forbid this case.
P reports an event and calls do_notify_parent_cldstop().
C receives SIGSTOP and calls do_notify_parent_cldstop() too.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists