Re: [REGRESSION] ptrace broken from "cgroup: cgroup v2 freezer" (76f969e)

["Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]

On Sun, 12 May 2019 21:20:12 -0400, "Alex Xu (Hello71)" said:

> I bisected this to 76f969e, "cgroup: cgroup v2 freezer". I reverted the
> entire patchset (reverting only that one caused a conflict), which
> resolved the issue. I skimmed the patch and came up with this
> workaround, which also resolves the issue. I am not at all clear on the
> technical workings of the patchset, but it seems to me like a process's
> frozen status is supposed to be "suspended" when a frozen process is
> ptraced, and "unsuspended" when ptracing ends. Therefore, it seems
> suspicious to always "enter frozen" whether or not the cgroup is
> actually frozen. It seems like the code should instead check if the
> cgroup is actually frozen, and if so, restore the frozen status.

Your analysis seems to be more or less correct, especially since your
one-line workaround patch makes things start working again.

> -               cgroup_enter_frozen();
> +               //cgroup_enter_frozen();

However, I'm sure this isn't a proper fix - it needs an if statement guarding
it (or a check inside the function).  If the kernel is ever in a state where it
*should* be frozen, and it doesn't freeze, things will misbehave.

One has to wonder how many things would be different if the ptrace()
system call wasn't such a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys....

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]