Re: PATCH? tracehook_report_clone: fix false positives

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/31, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> ACK on the 2.6.30 patch attached.

Thanks, I am adding your Acked-by to tha patch.

> > So, I am going to send the patch below. But this leads to another question:
> > should not we move these sigaddset() + set_tsk_thread_flag() into
> > ptrace_init_task() ?
>
> It might make sense to consolidate them.  But note that ptrace_attach()
> uses send_sig_info().  With SEND_SIG_FORCED, this does almost nothing more
> than sigaddset() (i.e. no queue entry).  But it does do prepare_signal(),
> which will clear any pending SIGCONTs.  It's possible that something in
> userland manages to rely on that behavior for the asynchronous attach case
> (unrelated to startup-time races).  It wouldn't hurt for the creation-time
> case to use send_sig_info() too, though it would go through a bunch more
> code to do nothing effectual but sigaddset() in the end.

Oh, I never thought about attach && SIGCONT interaction...

But, tracehook_report_clone() has the same problems?

And if we move sigaddset to ptrace_task_init(), we should not worry about
SIGCONT? Without CLONE_THREAD the new task is not visible to user-space yet.
Even if we clone a sub-thread, ptrace_init_task() runs under ->siglock.
If SIGCONT is already pending, copy_process() won't succeed.

Or do you mean something else?

Oleg.

--
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/