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/
