Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 04/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 04/27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >
>> > Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> @@ -253,7 +252,7 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct
>> > >> *child, bool ignore_state)
>> > >> */
>> > >> if (lock_task_sighand(child, &flags)) {
>> > >> if (child->ptrace && child->parent == current) {
>> > >> - WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(child->__state) ==
>> > >> __TASK_TRACED);
>> > >> + WARN_ON(child->jobctl & JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL);
>> > >
>> > > This WARN_ON() doesn't look right.
>> > >
>> > > It is possible that this child was traced by another task and
>> > > PTRACE_DETACH'ed,
>> > > but it didn't clear DELAY_WAKEKILL.
>> >
>> > That would be a bug. That would mean that PTRACE_DETACHED process can
>> > not be SIGKILL'd.
>>
>> Why? The tracee will take siglock, clear JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL and notice
>> SIGKILL after that.
>
> Not to mention that the tracee is TASK_RUNNING after PTRACE_DETACH wakes it
> up, so the pending JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL simply has no effect.
Oh. You are talking about the window when between clearing the
traced state and when tracee resumes executing and clears
JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL.
I thought you were thinking about JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL being leaked.
That requires both ptrace_attach and ptrace_check_attach for the new
tracer to happen before the tracee is scheduled to run.
I agree. I think the WARN_ON could reasonably be moved a bit later,
but I don't know that the WARN_ON is important. I simply kept it because
it seemed to make sense.
Eric
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
