* Re: arch_ptrace_attach() without ptrace_traceme()?
2011-06-27 13:34 ` arch_ptrace_attach() without ptrace_traceme()? Oleg Nesterov
@ 2011-06-27 17:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2011-06-27 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: penguin-kernel; +Cc: roland, linux-kernel
On 06/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/27, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp wrote:
> >
> > Regarding commit f1671f6d "ptrace: fix exit_ptrace() vs ptrace_traceme() race",
> > is calling arch_ptrace_attach() when ptrace_traceme() returned 0 without doing
> > anything (due to PF_EXITING race) expected behavior?
>
> Hmm. Good point, I thinks this should be fixed.
But it is not clear how we can fix this, perhaps we should ignore this
problem...
arch_ptrace_attach() is inherently racy when PTRACE_TRACEME is called.
Please note that f1671f6d did not introduce this race, although I have
to admit I didn't notice this problem when I did this patch.
The race with PF_EXITING you described doesn't differ from another
scenario. PF_EXITING is not set, ptrace_traceme() actually attaches
the caller, but its paren exits and untraces it before it does
arch_ptrace_attach().
If only I knew what arch_ptrace_attach() can do in general ;) But
probably it should be paired with ptrace_disable(), and it is not
called when the tracer detaches on exit anyway. So I think we can
ignore this race.
Oleg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread