| From | "Eric W. Biederman" <> | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:05:47 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 9/9] ptrace: Don't change __state |
| |
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> writes:
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h > index 3c8b34876744..1947c85aa9d9 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h > @@ -437,7 +437,8 @@ extern void signal_wake_up_state(struct task_struct *t, unsigned int state); > > static inline void signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume) > { > - signal_wake_up_state(t, resume ? TASK_WAKEKILL : 0); > + bool wakekill = resume && !(t->jobctl & JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL); > + signal_wake_up_state(t, wakekill ? TASK_WAKEKILL : 0); > } > static inline void ptrace_signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume) > {
Grrr. While looking through everything today I have realized that there is a bug.
Suppose we have 3 processes: TRACER, TRACEE, KILLER.
Meanwhile TRACEE is in the middle of ptrace_stop, just after siglock has been dropped.
The TRACER process has performed ptrace_attach on TRACEE and is in the middle of a ptrace operation and has just set JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL.
Then comes in the KILLER process and sends the TRACEE a SIGKILL. The TRACEE __state remains TASK_TRACED, as designed.
The bug appears when the TRACEE makes it to schedule(). Inside schedule there is a call to signal_pending_state() which notices a SIGKILL is pending and refuses to sleep.
I could avoid setting TIF_SIGPENDING in signal_wake_up but that is insufficient as another signal may be pending.
I could avoid marking the task as __fatal_signal_pending but then where would the information that the task needs to become __fatal_signal_pending go.
Hmm.
This looks like I need my other pending cleanup which introduces a helper to get this idea to work.
Eric
|