Re: Q: perf_event && task->ptrace_bps[]

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I am trying to understand the usage of hw-breakpoints in arch_ptrace().
> ptrace_set_debugreg() and related code looks obviously racy. Nothing
> protects us against flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() called by the dying
> tracee. Afaics we can leak perf_event or use the already freed memory
> or both.
>
> Am I missed something?
>
> Looking into the git history, I don't even know which patch should be
> blamed (if I am right), there were too many changes. I noticed that
> 2ebd4ffb6d0cb877787b1e42be8485820158857e "perf events: Split out task
> search into helper" moved the PF_EXITING check from find_get_context().
> This check coould help if sys_ptrace() races with SIGKILL, but it was
> racy anyway.

Ping.

Any idea how to fix this cleanly? May be we can reuse perf_event_mutex,
but this looks soooo ugly. And do_exit()->flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint()
has the strange "FIXME:" comment which doesn't help me to understand
what can we do.

Probably the best fix is to change this code so that the tracer owns
->ptrace_bps[], not the tracee. But this is not trivial, and needs a
lot of changes in ptrace code.


I am reading perf_event.c, but all I found so far is a couple of trivial
methods to crash the kernel via sys_perf_event_open(), will report
tomorrow...

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/