Re: RFC: PTRACE_SEIZE needs API cleanup?

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Tuesday 06 September 2011 19:08, Indan Zupancic wrote:
> >> > Problem. Now we interfere with SIGSTRAPs. Yes, there are users who want
> >> > to be able to see real SIGTRAPs they send to the program,
> >> > or ones generated by, say, int3 instruction on x86.
> >>
> >> But SIGTRAP is ours, ptrace already sends SIGTRAPS at execve.
> >
> > ...whcih causes problems, and therefore we have PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC to suppress
> > this idiotic post-execve SIGTRAP.
> 
> The SIGTRAP is still there, there is just an extra bit to distinguish
> it from normal SIGTRAPs.

No. SIGTRAP is no longer 'there'. The PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC happens in a different
place: after syscall-entry, but before syscall-exit. Also, it can't be blocked
by signal mask. Old-style post-execve SIGTRAP happens after syscall exit,
and can be blocked by signal mask.

IOW: PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC is not a signal at all. It just happens to have 
WSTOPSIG(status) == SIGTRAP.

> Sending another SIGTRAP with another bit set, 
> just as with PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC, solves this issue.


> >> Only change is
> >> that it also sends one for new childs instead of SIGSTOP.
> >
> > Racing with user's SIGTRAP does not fix the problem, it merely moves it
> > to a different signal. PTRACE_EVENT_STOP thingy fixes the problem once
> > and for all.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if it's SIGSTOP with an extra flag, or SIGTRAP
> with an extra flag set. But SIGTRAP is already used this way for fork
> and exec,

SIGTRAP is used for fork? I don't think so.

> so using it always instead of sometimes SIGSTOP would be more 
> consistent. It's also clearer what to do with the SIGTRAP as tracer: Block
> it so the tracee doesn't see it. With SIGSTOP it's less clear what to do.
> In current trace it doesn't matter what you do, in practice, and that's also
> what the manpage says. So using SIGTRAP with an extra bit set is cleaner.



> >> Tracers that want to get group stop notifications will set WSTOPPED and get
> >> that information that way. But as ptrace won't generate any SIGSTOPs, they
> >> don't have to use GETSIGINFO to know if it came from ptrace or not: It never
> >> does.
> >
> > Drats. In your proposal, if I'd set WSTOPPED, I will get group-stops, right?
> 
> Group stop notifications, yes, that was the idea.
> 
> > How in your proposed solution can I "restart and cancel group-stop" after
> > group-stop? And how can I "restart and wait for a SIGCONT"?
> 
> Not sure what you mean with restart, just send another SIGSTOP?
> 
> Blocking a group stop happens by blocking the SIGSTOP delivery to the tracee.

Here we go again.

I will write it in bold.

YOU MUST NOT BLOCK DELIVERY OF STOPPING SIGNALS! IT'S ***WRONG***!

I already told you numerous times that SIGTSTP, SISTTIN and SIGTTOU
can have non-default handlers. Do you understand what this means?
I guess you don't, since you never replied with the explanation how you
propose to with this problem.

I also told you that SIGSTOP/SIGCONT are *process-wide*. Meaning
that if you stop on SIGSTOP delivery to one thread of a multithreaded process
and will not restart it via PTRACE_CONT, then THIS PARTICULAL THREAD
will stop running, yes, but all other threads WILL NOT STOP.

> Each tracee gets a SIGSTOP ptrace event, it's not like only one gets it and
> that controls the state of the whole group.

It's exactly the opposite. SIGSTOP signal-delivery-stop happens on *one* thread,
and if tracer does not suppress it, then all threads go into group-stop.

> Same for SIGCONT. I'll have to 
> double check this, but I think this is how it works.

Please do double-check.


> >> A group-stop notification is not really a ptrace event (maybe it is now),
> >> so PTRACE_CONT wouldn't be needed. It's just a group stop notification,
> >> not a freeze, report and wait event, like signals.
> >
> > Yes, this would be a reasonable API model. PTRACE_CONT cancels group-stop,
> > and *doing nothing* leaves task in the group-stop. One problem with this:
> > many ptrace ops (such as GETREGS) are only allowed in ptrace stops.
> > If you don't consider group-stop to be a ptrace-stop, then no such
> > ops are allowed. In fact, even restart ops need stopped tracee, so PTRACE_CONT
> > is illegal too. IOW: in this model, kernel doesn't know when we decided
> > to go down *do nothing* route. From kernel POW, it is confused. Maybe we do
> > want to PTRACE_CONT, but just didn't get around to it?
> 
> It's probably best to not change the current model for group stop notifications
> (when requested via WSTOPPED), as that is confusing, even if the new behaviour
> is better (which it probably isn't).
> 
> You're right that if a tracee requests group stop notifications, it probably
> wants to be able to poke around too sometimes, and then a ptrace slightly
> entwined with group stops is preferred. But it's not elegant. :-/

How kernel knows that tracer is done with poking around, and now it's ok to
wake up on SIGCONT?


> >> > then we have a problem: gdb can't use this interface, it
> >> > needs to be able to restart the thread (only one thread, not all of
> >> > them, so sending SIGCONT is not ok!) from the group-stop. Yes, it's
> >> > weird, but it's the real requirement from gdb users.
> >>
> >> Is that true? Isn't a SIGCONT sent to the TID only for that thread instead
> >> of the whole group? That's slightly inconvenient indeed. Perhaps this
> >> limitation can be fixed? Might be troublesome for the main thread.
> >
> > This is how stopping/starting works. It's per-process, not per-thread.
> > Regardless of the thread it is sent to, stop signals stop all threads,
> > and SIGCONT restarts all of them.
> 
> Yes, but every thread gets a SIGCONT

No, not every thread. Only one thread gets it.

> and the tracee will get a ptrace 
> event for each thread. It can let the threads it doesn't want to continue
> hang in the ptrace handling, and continue only one with PTRACE_CONT.
> 
> Any reason why this can't work?

Gosh......... I already told you why it won't work.


> >> > In short, you propose to make it possible to switch off group-stop
> >> > notification.
> >>
> >> That is just part of the proposal, the main this is to not let PTRACE_CONT
> >> continue a stopped task.
> >
> > This will break gdb. I told this several times already. Not acceptable.
> 
> It probably can use SIGCONT to achieve what it wants.

SIGCONT is magic. It wakes all group-stopped threads, and this effect
can't be blocked *even via ptrace*. This means that restarting only one
thread via SIGCONT is impossible.


> Letting PTRACE_CONT 
> not resume stopped tasks would fix normal group stops without any changes.

Exactly our line of thought before gdb people shot down our idea.

> Only programs that want to resume single threads while holding the rest
> need to change their code slightly to let the tasks hang in SIGCONT instead
> of group stop notification.

> >> Switching off group-stop notifications makes it
> >> only easier to use ptrace when not specifically interested in group stops.
> >
> > Solution in the search of a problem.
> 
> You're probably right that it's not worth the trouble. I'm fine if tracers
> always get a group stop notification, but if so, there should be an option
> that makes PTRACE_CONT not continue group stopped tasks.

Yes. Exactly. That "option" is called PTRACE_LISTEN.


> What I want to avoid is adding extra specific code in the tracer when all
> it wants is to be transparent to group stops.

You mean, you want to avoid this atrocious bloat? -

-	ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, pid, 0, sig);
+	int is_stopped = .... determine whether it's a group_stop...
+	if (is_stopped) ptrace(PTRACE_LISTEN, pid, 0, 0);
+	else            ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, pid, 0, sig);

Somehow this doesn't look like big problem to me.


> One way is to not get the group stop notifications, so the tracer doesn't
> accidentally continues the stopped tasks. To me this seems the simplest
> solution, but it has the problem that it only works for tracers not
> interested in group stop. To also make it work with group stops, my idea
> was to let PTRACE_CONT not continue stopped tasks. Instead of trapping
> tasks at the beginning of group stop, they can trap the tasks at group
> stop exit time, which is much more natural anyway (because it is group
> continuation that gdb wants to prevent, not group stop).
> 
> With PTRACE_LISTEN the tracee has to handle group stops specially, then,
> instead of doing nothing for group stop notifications, it has to use
> PTRACE_LISTEN to emulate group stop and continuation for the tracee. No
> one is going to bother to add code for this when they're not interested
> in group stops, especially not if the code is portable at all.

Portable code using ptrace? I pity those who need to maintain that...


> It's just not worth the trouble. The behaviour is too strange and different with
> PTRACE_LISTEN.

I disagree. See code fragment above. It's simple.


> Compare that to:
> 
>  "PTRACE_O_FOO makes PTRACE_CONT/PTRACE_SYSCALL/etc. not automatically
>   continue a group stopped process, so that SIGSTOP and SIGCONT work for
>   ptraced processes. Tracers that want to control thread continuation
>   can do that at SIGCONT time."

This doesn't allow to make a decision whether to honor or ignore group-stop
*after* it happened. 


-- 
vda
--
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/