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;
Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 19:45:38 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@intel.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: Kernel stack read with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT and io_uring threads
Message-ID: <YNDsYk6kbisbNy3I@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <CAHk-=wgsnMTr0V-0F4FOk30Q1h7CeT8wLvR1MSnjack7EpyWtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6e47eff8-d0a4-8390-1222-e975bfbf3a65@gmail.com>
 <924ec53c-2fd9-2e1c-bbb1-3fda49809be4@gmail.com>
 <87eed4v2dc.fsf@disp2133>
 <5929e116-fa61-b211-342a-c706dcb834ca@gmail.com>
 <87fsxjorgs.fsf@disp2133>
 <CAHk-=wj5cJjpjAmDptmP9u4__6p3Y93SCQHG8Ef4+h=cnLiCsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YNCaMDQVYB04bk3j@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <YNDhdb7XNQE6zQzL@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=whAsWXcJkpMM8ji77DkYkeJAT4Cj98WBX-S6=GnMQwhzg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whAsWXcJkpMM8ji77DkYkeJAT4Cj98WBX-S6=GnMQwhzg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 12:22:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:59 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >         There's a large mess around do_exit() - we have a bunch of
> > callers all over arch/*; if nothing else, I very much doubt that really
> > want to let tracer play with a thread in the middle of die_if_kernel()
> > or similar.
> 
> Right you are.
> 
> I'm really beginning to hate ptrace_{event,notify}() and those
> PTRACE_EVENT_xyz things.
> 
> I don't even know what uses them, honestly. How very annoying.
> 
> I guess it's easy enough (famous last words) to move the
> ptrace_event() call out of do_exit() and into the actual
> exit/exit_group system calls, and the signal handling path. The paths
> that actually have proper pt_regs.
> 
> Looks like sys_exit() and do_group_exit() would be the two places to
> do it (do_group_exit() would handle the signal case and
> sys_group_exit()).

Maybe...  I'm digging through that pile right now, will follow up when
I get a reasonably complete picture.  In the meanwhile, do kernel/kthread.c
uses look even remotely sane?  Intentional - sure, but it really looks
wrong to use thread exit code as communication channel there...