ptrace_resume->wake_up_process (Was: Ptrace documentation, draft#1)

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> "does nothing" is not 100% true, it does wake_up_process() but this shouldn't
> be documented, this should be fixed.

In fact ptrace_resume()->wake_up_process() is obviously wrong anyway,
I think the patch below makes sense even for 2.6.40.

But it is much worse in PTRACE_KILL case. Just for example,

	int main(void)
	{
		int child, status;

		child = fork();
		if (!child) {
			int ret;

			assert(ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0,0,0) == 0);

			ret = pause();
			printf("pause: %d %m\n", ret);

			return 0x23;
		}

		sleep(1);
		assert(ptrace(PTRACE_KILL, child, 0,0) == 0);

		assert(child == wait(&status));
		printf("wait: %x\n", status);

		return 0;
	}

leaks -ERESTARTNOHAND. Yes, we should probably fix sys_pause() as well,
it should check signal_pending(). But we shouldn't allow to wake up the
tracee in unknown state/path.

Can't understand why this wasn't fixed before... I always knew this looks
wrong, but I never sent the patch. Probably because I never understood
the original reason for wake_up_process...

Oleg.

--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static int ptrace_resume(struct task_str
 	}
 
 	child->exit_code = data;
-	wake_up_process(child);
+	wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED);
 
 	return 0;
 }

--
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/