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;
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To:     Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <roc@pernos.co>, Kyle Huey <khuey@pernos.co>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
References: <20220421150248.667412396@infradead.org>
        <20220421150654.817117821@infradead.org>
        <87czhap9dy.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <878rrrh32q.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <87k0b7v9yk.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <87k0b0apne.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <87a6bv6dl6.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <87r13gd4xy.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <YrSC8AxEV24IgSbm@li-4a3a4a4c-28e5-11b2-a85c-a8d192c6f089.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:55:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <YrSC8AxEV24IgSbm@li-4a3a4a4c-28e5-11b2-a85c-a8d192c6f089.ibm.com>
        (Alexander Gordeev's message of "Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:12:48 +0200")
Message-ID: <87ilor9hae.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ptrace: Stop supporting SIGKILL for PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT
Precedence: bulk

Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:43:37AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Recently I had a conversation where it was pointed out to me that
>> SIGKILL sent to a tracee stropped in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is quite
>> difficult for a tracer to handle.
>> 
>> Keeping SIGKILL working for anything after the process has been killed
>> is also a real pain from an implementation point of view.
>> 
>> So I am attempting to remove this wart in the userspace API and see
>> if anyone cares.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> With this series s390 hits the warning exactly same way. Is that expected?

Yes.  I was working on this before I got your mysterious bug report.  I
included you because I am including everyone I know who deals with the
userspace side of this since I am very deliberately changing the user
visible behavior of PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.

I am going to start seeing if I can find any possible explanation for
your regression report.  Since I don't have much to go on I expect I
will have to revert the last change in my ptrace_stop series that
apparently triggers the WARN_ON you reported.  I really would have
expected the WARN_ON to be triggered in the patch in which it was
introduced, not the final patch in the series.


To the best of my knowledge changing PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is both desirable
from a userspace semantics standpoint and from a kernel implementation
standpoint.  If someone knows any differently and depends upon sending
SIGKILL to processes in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT to steal the process away from
the tracer I would love to hear about that case.

Eric