From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Denys Vlasenko" <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Łukasz Michalik" <lmi@ift.uni.wroc.pl>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
Subject: ptrace fixes for 3.2
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 16:44:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120103154404.GA28930@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120103142941.GA25488@redhat.com>
On 01/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I am going to send the hack^Wpatch below to Linus as a temporary
> workaround for 3.2.
The same patch with the changelog.
Denys, Tejun, any chance you can review it before I send it to Linus ?
Also, I am going to send this one:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131705871825598&w=2
could you please take a look?
Oleg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[PATCH] ptrace: partially fix the do_wait(WEXITED) vs EXIT_DEAD->EXIT_ZOMBIE race
Test-case:
int main(void)
{
int pid, status;
pid = fork();
if (!pid) {
for (;;) {
if (!fork())
return 0;
if (waitpid(-1, &status, 0) < 0) {
printf("ERR!! wait: %m\n");
return 0;
}
}
}
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, 0,0) == 0);
assert(waitpid(-1, NULL, 0) == pid);
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_SETOPTIONS, pid, 0, PTRACE_O_TRACEFORK) == 0);
do {
ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, pid, 0, 0);
pid = waitpid(-1, NULL, 0);
} while (pid > 0);
return 1;
}
It fails because ->real_parent sees its child in EXIT_DEAD state
while the tracer is going to change the state back to EXIT_ZOMBIE
in wait_task_zombie().
The offending commit is 823b018e which moved the EXIT_DEAD check,
but in fact we should not blame it. The original code was not
correct as well because it didn't take ptrace_reparented() into
account and because we can't really trust ->ptrace.
This patch adds the additional check to close this particular
race but it doesn't solve the whole problem. We simply can't
rely on ->ptrace in this case, it can be cleared if the tracer
is multithreaded by the exiting ->parent.
I think we should kill EXIT_DEAD altogether, we should always
remove the soon-to-be-reaped child from ->children or at least
we should never do the DEAD->ZOMBIE transition. But this is too
complex for 3.2.
Also, I think wait_consider_task() needs more fixes. I do not
think we should clear ->notask_error without WEXITED in this
case, but this is what we do in the EXIT_ZOMBIE case.
Reported-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Cc: v3.0.. <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
kernel/exit.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index d0b7d98..e6e01b9 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -1540,8 +1540,15 @@ static int wait_consider_task(struct wait_opts *wo, int ptrace,
}
/* dead body doesn't have much to contribute */
- if (p->exit_state == EXIT_DEAD)
+ if (unlikely(p->exit_state == EXIT_DEAD)) {
+ /*
+ * But do not ignore this task until the tracer does
+ * wait_task_zombie()->do_notify_parent().
+ */
+ if (likely(!ptrace) && unlikely(ptrace_reparented(p)))
+ wo->notask_error = 0;
return 0;
+ }
/* slay zombie? */
if (p->exit_state == EXIT_ZOMBIE) {
--
1.5.5.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-03 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-28 18:55 Possible bug introduced in commit 9b84cca Denys Vlasenko
2011-12-28 21:07 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-12-28 21:23 ` Łukasz Michalik
2011-12-29 11:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-29 12:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-03 14:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-03 15:44 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-01-03 16:30 ` ptrace fixes for 3.2 Tejun Heo
2012-01-03 17:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-03 19:18 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-04 11:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-04 15:31 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-04 15:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-03 16:51 ` Denys Vlasenko
2012-01-04 9:00 ` Łukasz Michalik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120103154404.GA28930@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lmi@ift.uni.wroc.pl \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vda.linux@googlemail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome