Re: [RFC] [Patch 1/1] [Self Ptrace] System call notification withself_ptrace

[Pierre Morel]

Hello Oleg,

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/25, Pierre Morel wrote:
>   
> > @@ -550,6 +550,23 @@ asmlinkage long sys_ptrace(long request,
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	if (request == PTRACE_SELF_ON) {
> > +		task_lock(current);
> > +		set_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
> > +		current->ptrace |= PT_SELF;
> >     
>
> I didn't read the whole patch, but this sets PT_SELF without PT_PTRACED
> (and without ptrace_attach).
>   
Yes it is the way it is intended to work.
PT_SELF and other ptrace requests are not correlated,
I use the ptrace infrastructure to take advantage
of the existing system call interception framework.
> We have some "->ptrace != 0" checks which can misunderstand this. Just
> for example, suppose that the task does sys_ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_ON) and
> then its parent dies. I guess in that case forget_original_parent()
> will hit BUG_ON(p->ptrace), no?
>
>   
Yes you are right, I will take care of those cases.
I have the choice between:

- tracking all references to the ptrace flags and add a test for PT_SELF
or a mask.

- add a dedicated task_struct entry to hold the PT_SELF flag

The second solution seems easier, simpler and more
readable but extends the task struct.

What do you think is the best way to do it?

> Oleg.
>
>   
Thanks,

Pierre




--
=============
Pierre Morel
RTOS and Embedded Linux

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/