Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:11:11 +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: <20220428151110.GB15485@redhat.com>
References: <878rrrh32q.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20220426225211.308418-9-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <87czh2160k.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87czh2160k.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 04/27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h
> > index 3c8b34876744..1947c85aa9d9 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h
> > @@ -437,7 +437,8 @@ extern void signal_wake_up_state(struct task_struct *t, unsigned int state);
> >
> >  static inline void signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume)
> >  {
> > -	signal_wake_up_state(t, resume ? TASK_WAKEKILL : 0);
> > +	bool wakekill = resume && !(t->jobctl & JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL);
> > +	signal_wake_up_state(t, wakekill ? TASK_WAKEKILL : 0);
> >  }
> >  static inline void ptrace_signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume)
> >  {
>
> Grrr.  While looking through everything today I have realized that there
> is a bug.
>
> Suppose we have 3 processes: TRACER, TRACEE, KILLER.
>
> Meanwhile TRACEE is in the middle of ptrace_stop, just after siglock has
> been dropped.
>
> The TRACER process has performed ptrace_attach on TRACEE and is in the
> middle of a ptrace operation and has just set JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL.
>
> Then comes in the KILLER process and sends the TRACEE a SIGKILL.
> The TRACEE __state remains TASK_TRACED, as designed.
>
> The bug appears when the TRACEE makes it to schedule().  Inside
> schedule there is a call to signal_pending_state() which notices
> a SIGKILL is pending and refuses to sleep.

And I think this is fine. This doesn't really differ from the case
when the tracee was killed before it takes siglock.

The only problem (afaics) is that, once we introduce JOBCTL_TRACED,
ptrace_stop() can leak this flag. That is why I suggested to clear
it along with LISTENING/DELAY_WAKEKILL before return, exactly because
schedule() won't block if fatal_signal_pending() is true.

But may be I misunderstood you concern?

Oleg.