From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.74]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nmczh-00GWsu-HG for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 May 2022 15:02:18 +0000 Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 17:01:59 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] ptrace: Admit ptrace_stop can generate spuriuos SIGTRAPs Message-ID: <20220505150158.GB13929@redhat.com> References: <87k0b0apne.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <20220504224058.476193-8-ebiederm@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220504224058.476193-8-ebiederm@xmission.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, mgorman@suse.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de, Will Deacon , tj@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Richard Weinberger , Anton Ivanov , Johannes Berg , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Chris Zankel , Max Filippov , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook , Jann Horn , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > With the removal of the incomplete detection of the tracer going away > in ptrace_stop, ptrace_stop always sleeps in schedule after > ptrace_freeze_traced succeeds. Modify ptrace_check_attach to > warn if wait_task_inactive fails. Oh. Again, I don't understand the changelog. If we forget about RT, ptrace_stop() will always sleep if ptrace_freeze_traced() succeeds. may_ptrace_stop() has gone. IOW. Lets forget about RT > --- a/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -266,17 +266,9 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, bool ignore_state) > } > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > - if (!ret && !ignore_state) { > - if (!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED)) { > - /* > - * This can only happen if may_ptrace_stop() fails and > - * ptrace_stop() changes ->state back to TASK_RUNNING, > - * so we should not worry about leaking __TASK_TRACED. > - */ > - WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(child->__state) == __TASK_TRACED); > - ret = -ESRCH; > - } > - } > + if (!ret && !ignore_state && > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED))) > + ret = -ESRCH; > > return ret; > } Why do you think this change would be wrong without any other changes? Oleg. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um