Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210511165626.GA13720@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210511165626.GA13720@redhat.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 10:28:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whLqbTNc1T+rHCm-kxbVAuhK3hjo5fOgDVf5-z--x1mvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND2] ptrace: make ptrace() fail if the tracee changed
 its pid unexpectedly
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
        Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
        Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:56 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> This patch makes ptrace() fail in this case until debugger does wait()
> and consumes PTHREAD_EVENT_EXEC which reports old_pid.

I'm ok with the patch, just wondering which way it's supposed to come
to me. Should I just apply it directly?

That said, why this:

> +       rcu_read_lock();
> +       pid = task_pid_nr_ns(task, task_active_pid_ns(task->parent));
> +       rcu_read_unlock();

I don't see why the RCU read lock would be needed? task_pid_nr_ns()
does any required locking itself, afaik.

And even if it wasn't, this all happens with siglock held, can
anything actually change.

             Linus