Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs PREEMPT_RT

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 04/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:20:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >
> > > +		// !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > +		// wrong, needs siglock
> > > +		current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX;
> > > +		wake_up_bit(&current->jobctl, ~JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX_BIT);
> > 		  __wake_up_common_lock()
> > 		    spin_lock_irqsave()
> > 		      current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state();

OOPS, thanks.

> Something that might work; since there's only the one ptracer, is to
> instead do something like:
>
> 	current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX; // siglock
> 	if (current->ptrace)
> 		wake_up_process(current->parent);
> 	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> 	schedule();
>
>
> vs
>
> 	for (;;) {
> 		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> 		if (!(p->jobctl & JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX))
> 			break;
> 		schedule();

Yes, thanks... this is racy, see below, but probably fixeable.

> ptrace_detach() needs some additional magic as well I think, but this
> might just work.

I don't think so, JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX must be always cleared in ptrace_stop()
and ptrace_detach() implies ptrace_check_attach().


Lets forget about the proble above for the moment. There is another problem
with my patch,

	if (!(child->ptrace && child->parent == current))
		return ret;

this check is racy without tasklist, we can race with another task attaching
to our natural child (so that child->parent == current), ptrace_attach() sets
task->ptrace = flags first and changes child->parent after that.

In this case:

	if (ignore_state)
		return 0;

this is just wrong,

	if (wait_on_bit(&task->jobctl, JOBCTL_TRACED_XXX_BIT, TASK_KILLABLE))
		return -EINTR;

this is fine,

	if (!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED))

this not right too. wait_task_inactive() can loop "forever" doing schedule_hrtimeout()
if the actual debugger stops/resumes the tracee continuously. This is pure theoretical,
but still.

And this also means that the code above needs some changes too, we can rely on
wake_up_process(current->parent).

OK, let me think about it. Thanks!

Oleg.