3.2.70-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> commit b72c186999e689cb0b055ab1c7b3cd8fffbeb5ed upstream. ptrace_resume() is called when the tracee is still __TASK_TRACED. We set tracee->exit_code and then wake_up_state() changes tracee->state. If the tracer's sub-thread does wait() in between, task_stopped_code(ptrace => T) wrongly looks like another report from tracee. This confuses debugger, and since wait_task_stopped() clears ->exit_code the tracee can miss a signal. Test-case: #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <sys/ptrace.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <assert.h> int pid; void *waiter(void *arg) { int stat; for (;;) { assert(pid == wait(&stat)); assert(WIFSTOPPED(stat)); if (WSTOPSIG(stat) == SIGHUP) continue; assert(WSTOPSIG(stat) == SIGCONT); printf("ERR! extra/wrong report:%x\n", stat); } } int main(void) { pthread_t thread; pid = fork(); if (!pid) { assert(ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0,0,0) == 0); for (;;) kill(getpid(), SIGHUP); } assert(pthread_create(&thread, NULL, waiter, NULL) == 0); for (;;) ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, pid, 0, SIGCONT); return 0; } Note for stable: the bug is very old, but without 9899d11f6544 "ptrace: ensure arch_ptrace/ptrace_request can never race with SIGKILL" the fix should use lock_task_sighand(child). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> Reported-by: Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> Tested-by: Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> --- kernel/ptrace.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) --- a/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -640,6 +640,8 @@ static int ptrace_setsiginfo(struct task static int ptrace_resume(struct task_struct *child, long request, unsigned long data) { + bool need_siglock; + if (!valid_signal(data)) return -EIO; @@ -667,8 +669,26 @@ static int ptrace_resume(struct task_str user_disable_single_step(child); } + /* + * Change ->exit_code and ->state under siglock to avoid the race + * with wait_task_stopped() in between; a non-zero ->exit_code will + * wrongly look like another report from tracee. + * + * Note that we need siglock even if ->exit_code == data and/or this + * status was not reported yet, the new status must not be cleared by + * wait_task_stopped() after resume. + * + * If data == 0 we do not care if wait_task_stopped() reports the old + * status and clears the code too; this can't race with the tracee, it + * takes siglock after resume. + */ + need_siglock = data && !thread_group_empty(current); + if (need_siglock) + spin_lock_irq(&child->sighand->siglock); child->exit_code = data; wake_up_state(child, __TASK_TRACED); + if (need_siglock) + spin_unlock_irq(&child->sighand->siglock); return 0; } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/