lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: perf_event && task->ptrace_bps[]
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:52:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 21:34 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 11/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand the usage of hw-breakpoints in arch_ptrace().
> > > ptrace_set_debugreg() and related code looks obviously racy. Nothing
> > > protects us against flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() called by the dying
> > > tracee. Afaics we can leak perf_event or use the already freed memory
> > > or both.
> > >
> > > Am I missed something?
> > >
> > > Looking into the git history, I don't even know which patch should be
> > > blamed (if I am right), there were too many changes. I noticed that
> > > 2ebd4ffb6d0cb877787b1e42be8485820158857e "perf events: Split out task
> > > search into helper" moved the PF_EXITING check from find_get_context().
> > > This check coould help if sys_ptrace() races with SIGKILL, but it was
> > > racy anyway.
> >
> > Ping.
> >
> > Any idea how to fix this cleanly? May be we can reuse perf_event_mutex,
> > but this looks soooo ugly. And do_exit()->flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint()
> > has the strange "FIXME:" comment which doesn't help me to understand
> > what can we do.
> >
> > Probably the best fix is to change this code so that the tracer owns
> > ->ptrace_bps[], not the tracee. But this is not trivial, and needs a
> > lot of changes in ptrace code.
>
> Wasn't this sorted by: 8882135bcd332f294df5455747ea43ba9e6f77ad?
>
> Or is this purely related to the ptrace muck? in which case I guess
> Frederic is you man, I never looked at the hw_breakpoint stuff in
> general and the ptrace bits in particular.

Yeah sorry I lost track on this and left it unanswered in the middle.
Just lemme rewalk the thread and I'm back :)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-17 22:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans