Re: [PATCH v2] ptrace: unify FDPIC implementations

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/21, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> The Blackfin/FRV/SuperH guys all have the same exact FDPIC ptrace code in
> their arch handlers (since they were probably copied & pasted).  Since
> these ptrace interfaces are an arch independent aspect of the FDPIC code,
> unify them in the common ptrace code so new FDPIC ports don't need to copy
> and paste this fundamental stuff yet again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Paul Mundt <lethal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

I think the patch is nice too.

But,

> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -596,6 +596,26 @@ int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long request,
>  		ret = ptrace_detach(child, data);
>  		break;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF_FDPIC
> +	case PTRACE_GETFDPIC: {
> +		unsigned long tmp = 0;
> +
> +		switch (addr) {
> +		case PTRACE_GETFDPIC_EXEC:
> +			tmp = child->mm->context.exec_fdpic_loadmap;
> +			break;
> +		case PTRACE_GETFDPIC_INTERP:
> +			tmp = child->mm->context.interp_fdpic_loadmap;

This looks unsafe. What protect child->mm if ptrace() races with SIGKILL ?

Of course, I do not blame this patch, the code was copied from arch/, but
I think we need another patch which checks ->mm != NULL under task_lock()
on top of this one?

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/