Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753464Ab1EIQU0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 12:20:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7820 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752408Ab1EIQUZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2011 12:20:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:18:38 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, vda.linux@googlemail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, indan@nul.nu Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE Message-ID: <20110509161838.GA27473@redhat.com> References: <1304869745-1073-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1304869745-1073-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1304869745-1073-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3667 Lines: 100 On 05/08, Tejun Heo wrote: > > After PTRACE_SEIZE, tracee will trap. Which trap will happen isn't > fixed. If other trap conditions exist (signal delivery or group > stop), they might be taken; otherwise, a trap with exit_code SIGTRAP | > (PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT << 8) is taken. > guaranteed. Personally, I think the new behaviour is fine. But, as usual, I'd like to know what Jan/Denys think. As for the implementation, > -static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task) > +static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task, long request, > + unsigned long flags) > { > + bool seize = request == PTRACE_SEIZE; Cough. I really hate the cosmetic nits but can't resist... bool seize = (request == PTRACE_SEIZE); looks more parseable, but feel free to ignore. > @@ -247,6 +272,14 @@ static int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task) > if (task_is_stopped(task)) { > task->jobctl |= JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING | JOBCTL_TRAPPING; > signal_wake_up(task, 1); > + } else if (seize) { > + /* > + * Otherwise, SEIZE uses jobctl trap to put tracee into > + * TASK_TRACED, which doesn't have the nasty side effects > + * of sending SIGSTOP. > + */ > + task->jobctl |= JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE; > + signal_wake_up(task, 0); OK... I am a bit worried we can set JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE even if the tracee was already killed, and if it is killed later JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE won't be cleared. Probably this is fine, ptrace_stop()->schedule() won't sleep in this case. Hmm. but see below. > @@ -1752,12 +1752,13 @@ static void ptrace_stop(int exit_code, int why, int clear_code, siginfo_t *info) > set_current_state(TASK_TRACED); > > /* > - * We're committing to trapping. Clearing JOBCTL_TRAPPING and > - * transition to TASK_TRACED should be atomic with respect to > - * siglock. This should be done after the arch hook as siglock is > - * released and regrabbed across it. > + * We're committing to trapping. Adjust ->jobctl. Updates to > + * these flags and transition to TASK_TRACED should be atomic with > + * respect to siglock. This should be done after the arch hook as > + * siglock may be released and regrabbed across it. > */ > task_clear_jobctl_trapping(current); > + current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE; Yes. But, it seems, this is too late. Suppose that the JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE tracee was SIGKILLED before it reports PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT. Now, if arch_ptrace_stop_needed() == T, ptrace_stop() returns without clearing JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE/TIF_SIGPENDING. This means get_signal_to_deliver() will loop forever. I never understood why ptrace_stop()->sigkill_pending() logic, I think we should check fatal_signal_pending() unconditionally. Oh, and we have other subtle issues here. > for (;;) { > struct k_sigaction *ka; > + > + /* > + * Check for ptrace trap conditions. Jobctl traps are used > + * to trap ptracee while staying transparent regarding > + * signal and job control. > + */ > + if (unlikely(current->jobctl & JOBCTL_TRAP_MASK)) { > + ptrace_notify_locked(SIGTRAP | > + (PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT << 8)); > + continue; Shouldn't we recheck SIGNAL_CLD_MASK after ptrace_notify_locked() returns? Probably not, but I am not sure... In any case. This doesn't really matter, but can't we check JOBCTL_TRAP_MASK outside of the main loop? Unless we drop ->siglock this bit can't be changed, and every time we drop ->siglock we go to "relock". 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/