[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 13:26:41 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
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>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 08/12] ptrace: Document that wait_task_inactive can't fail
After ptrace_freeze_traced succeeds it is known that the the tracee
has a __state value of __TASK_TRACED and that no __ptrace_unlink will
happen because the tracer is waiting for the tracee, and the tracee is
in ptrace_stop.
The function ptrace_freeze_traced can succeed at any point after
ptrace_stop has set TASK_TRACED and dropped siglock. The read_lock on
tasklist_lock only excludes ptrace_attach.
This means that the !current->ptrace which executes under a read_lock
of tasklist_lock will never see a ptrace_freeze_trace as the tracer
must have gone away before the tasklist_lock was taken and
ptrace_attach can not occur until the read_lock is dropped. As
ptrace_freeze_traced depends upon ptrace_attach running before it can
run that excludes ptrace_freeze_traced until __state is set to
TASK_RUNNING. This means that task_is_traced will fail in
ptrace_freeze_attach and ptrace_freeze_attached will fail.
On the current->ptrace branch of ptrace_stop which will be reached any
time after ptrace_freeze_traced has succeed it is known that __state
is __TASK_TRACED and schedule() will be called with that state.
Use a WARN_ON_ONCE to document that wait_task_inactive(TASK_TRACED)
should never fail. Remove the stale comment about may_ptrace_stop.
Strictly speaking this is not true because if PREEMPT_RT is enabled
wait_task_inactive can fail because __state can be changed. I don't
see this as a problem as the ptrace code is currently broken on
PREMPT_RT, and this is one of the issues. Failing and warning when
the assumptions of the code are broken is good.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
---
kernel/ptrace.c | 14 +++-----------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c
index 7105821595bc..05953ac9f7bd 100644
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -266,17 +266,9 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, bool ignore_state)
}
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
- if (!ret && !ignore_state) {
- if (!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)) {
- /*
- * This can only happen if may_ptrace_stop() fails and
- * ptrace_stop() changes ->state back to TASK_RUNNING,
- * so we should not worry about leaking __TASK_TRACED.
- */
- WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(child->__state) == __TASK_TRACED);
- ret = -ESRCH;
- }
- }
+ if (!ret && !ignore_state &&
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)))
+ ret = -ESRCH;
return ret;
}
--
2.35.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists