From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: Kernel stack read with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT and io_uring threads
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 09:33:50 -0500
Message-ID: <87zgvgabw1.fsf@disp2133>
References: <CAHk-=wgdO5VwSUFjfF9g=DAQNYmVxzTq73NtdisYErzdZKqDGg@mail.gmail.com>
        <87sg1lwhvm.fsf@disp2133>
        <CAHk-=wgsnMTr0V-0F4FOk30Q1h7CeT8wLvR1MSnjack7EpyWtQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <6e47eff8-d0a4-8390-1222-e975bfbf3a65@gmail.com>
        <924ec53c-2fd9-2e1c-bbb1-3fda49809be4@gmail.com>
        <87eed4v2dc.fsf@disp2133>
        <5929e116-fa61-b211-342a-c706dcb834ca@gmail.com>
        <87fsxjorgs.fsf@disp2133>
        <CAHk-=wj5cJjpjAmDptmP9u4__6p3Y93SCQHG8Ef4+h=cnLiCsA@mail.gmail.com>
        <YNCaMDQVYB04bk3j@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
        <YNDhdb7XNQE6zQzL@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
        <CAHk-=whAsWXcJkpMM8ji77DkYkeJAT4Cj98WBX-S6=GnMQwhzg@mail.gmail.com>
        <87a6njf0ia.fsf@disp2133>
        <CAHk-=wh4_iMRmWcao6a8kCvR0Hhdrz+M9L+q4Bfcwx9E9D0huw@mail.gmail.com>
        <87tulpbp19.fsf@disp2133>
        <CAHk-=wi_kQAff1yx2ufGRo2zApkvqU8VGn7kgPT-Kv71FTs=AA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi_kQAff1yx2ufGRo2zApkvqU8VGn7kgPT-Kv71FTs=AA@mail.gmail.com>
        (Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:41:51 -0700")
List-ID: <linux-alpha.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>, alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@intel.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:53 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>> Playing with it some more I think I have everything working working
>> except for PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP (which can stay ptrace_event) and
>> group_exit(2).
>>
>> Basically in exit sending yourself a signal and then calling do_exit
>> from the signal handler is not unreasonable, as exit is an ordinary
>> system call.
>
> Ok, this is a bit odd, but I do like the concept of just making
> ptrace_event just post a signal, and have all ptrace things always be
> handled at signal time (or the special system call entry/exit, which
> is fine too).
>
>> For purposes of discussion this is my current draft implementation.
>
> I didn't check what is so different about exit_group() that you left
> that as an exercise for the reader, but if that ends up then removing
> the whole "wait synchromously for ptrace" cases for good I don't
> _hate_ this. It's a bit odd, but it would be really nice to limit
> where ptrace picks up data.

I am still figuring out exit_group.  I am hoping for sometime today.
My intuition tells me I can do it, and I have a sense of what threads I
need to pull to get there.  I just don't know what the code is going to
look like yet.

Basically solving exit_group means moving ptrace_event out of do_exit.

> We do end up doing that stuff in "get_signal()", and that means that
> we have the interaction with io_uring calling it directly, but it's at
> least not a new thing.

The ugliest bit is having to repeat the wait_for_vfork_done both in fork
and in get_signal.

Eric