Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:39:32 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ptrace_stop: remove the wrong ->group_stop_count bookkeeping
Message-ID: <20080110213932.GA3396@tv-sign.ru>
References: <20071208183801.GA9943@tv-sign.ru> <m1wsroogi0.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20071209140525.GA131@tv-sign.ru> <4785F675.3070709@suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4785F675.3070709@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2214
Lines: 53

On 01/10, Petr Tesarik wrote:
>
> I can actually see a bug which may be related:
>
>   1. a process creates a thread (or more threads)
>   2. I attach/detach to that thread with strace several times
>      (each time pressing CTRL-C to quit strace)
>   3. the whole thread group (except the traced thread) ends in
>      TASK_STOPPED
>
> I looked at what strace was doing to that thread, and it sometimes sends
> SIGSTOP shortly before detaching. This is done when the thread is
> running, i.e. not waiting in ptrace_stop. Then PTRACE_DETACH returns
> - -ESRCH because it requires the tracee to be stopped -- just like all
> PTRACE_* requests except TRACEME and ATTACH. So, strace has no other
> option than to send an explicit SIGSTOP to the thread to stop it and
> discard it afterwards.
>
> Could this be related?

Perhaps yes. But there are so many oddities in this area. I don't know what
really happens with your test-case, but afaics this can happen even without
ptrace_stop() playing with the group stop.

Let's suppose that strace detached all sub-threads except T which is running,
and now strace does ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, T). This fails, so strace does
kill(T, SIGSTOP).

Note that it use kill(), not tkill(). This means another sub-thread can
dequeue this signal and initiate the group stop (remember, it was already
detached and thus it is not traced any longer).

Now strace does wait4(T, __WALL). T notices the group stop in progress,
calls handle_group_stop(), and notifies its parent - strace.

wait4() returns success, strace does ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, T) again. Now
T is TASK_STOPPED, ptrace() changes the state to TASK_TRACED and finally
does ptrace_untrace().

ptrace_untrace() sees TASK_TRACED. But it is possible that the group stop
is not completed yet (some sub-thread didn't pass handle_group_stop()), in
that case we are doing signal_wake_up(T, 1) so it becomes running.


I still think this series makes sense even if not complete.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/