Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:18:30 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mingo@kernel.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mgorman@suse.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, tj@kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        inux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] ptrace: Don't change __state
Message-ID: <20220427171829.GJ17421@redhat.com>
References: <878rrrh32q.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20220426225211.308418-9-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <20220427160901.GI17421@redhat.com>
 <87o80m7afv.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87o80m7afv.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 04/27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> @@ -253,7 +252,7 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, bool ignore_state)
> >>  	 */
> >>  	if (lock_task_sighand(child, &flags)) {
> >>  		if (child->ptrace && child->parent == current) {
> >> -			WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(child->__state) == __TASK_TRACED);
> >> +			WARN_ON(child->jobctl & JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL);
> >
> > This WARN_ON() doesn't look right.
> >
> > It is possible that this child was traced by another task and PTRACE_DETACH'ed,
> > but it didn't clear DELAY_WAKEKILL.
>
> That would be a bug.  That would mean that PTRACE_DETACHED process can
> not be SIGKILL'd.

Why? The tracee will take siglock, clear JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL and notice
SIGKILL after that.

Oleg.

> > If the new debugger attaches and calls ptrace() before the child takes siglock
> > ptrace_freeze_traced() will fail, but we can hit this WARN_ON().
> 
> Eric
>