lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 0/12] ptrace: cleaning up ptrace_stop
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> On 05/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Eric W. Biederman (11): signal: Rename send_signal send_signal_locked
>> signal: Replace __group_send_sig_info with send_signal_locked
>> ptrace/um: Replace PT_DTRACE with TIF_SINGLESTEP ptrace/xtensa:
>> Replace PT_SINGLESTEP with TIF_SINGLESTEP ptrace: Remove
>> arch_ptrace_attach signal: Use lockdep_assert_held instead of
>> assert_spin_locked ptrace: Reimplement PTRACE_KILL by always sending
>> SIGKILL ptrace: Document that wait_task_inactive can't fail ptrace:
>> Admit ptrace_stop can generate spuriuos SIGTRAPs ptrace: Don't change
>> __state ptrace: Always take siglock in ptrace_resume
>>
>> Peter Zijlstra (1):
>> sched,signal,ptrace: Rework TASK_TRACED, TASK_STOPPED state
>
> I can't comment 5/12. to be honest I didn't even try to look into
> arch/ia64/.

I just looked at arch_ptrace_attach again and I spotted what looks like
a fairly easy analysis that is mostly arch-generic code that shows this
is dead code on ia64.

On ia64 arch_ptrace_attach is ptrace_attach_sync_user_rbs, and does
nothing if __state is not TASK_STOPPED.

When arch_ptrace_attach is called after ptrace_traceme __state is
TASK_RUNNING pretty much by definition as we are running in the
child. Therefore ptrace_attach_sync_user_rbs does nothing in that case.

When arch_ptrace_attach is called after ptrace_attach __state there
are two possibilities. If the tracee was already in TASK_STOPPED
before the ptrace_attach, the tracee will be in TASK_TRACED.
Otherwise the tracee will be in TASK_TRACED or on it's way to stopping
in TASK_TRACED.

Unless I totally misread ptrace_attach. There is no way that after
a successful ptrace_attach for the tracee to be in TASK_STOPPED.
This makes ptrace_attach_sync_user_rbs a big noop, AKA dead code.
So it can be removed.

> But other than that I see no problems in this version. However, I'd
> like to actually apply the whole series and read the changed code
> carefully, but sorry, I don't think I can do this before Monday.

No rush. I don't expect the merge window will open for a while yet.

Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-06 16:39    [W:0.560 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site