lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: Ptrace documentation, draft #1
    On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
    > On 05/18, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
    >>
    >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Note: currently a killed PT_TRACE_EXIT tracee can stop and report
    >> > PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT before it actually exits. I'd say this is wrong and
    >> > should be fixed.
    >>
    >> Yes, I assumed this is normal.
    >> Or do you mean that *killed* tracee (that is, by signal) also stops there?
    >
    > Yes.

    Thanks, noted.

    >> >> Tracer can kill a tracee with ptrace(PTRACE_KILL, pid, 0, 0).
    >> >
    >> > Oh, no. This is more or less equivalent to PTRACE_CONT(SIGKILL) except
    >> > PTRACE_KILL doesn't return the error if the tracee is not stopped.
    >> >
    >> > I'd say: do not use PTRACE_KILL, never. If the tracer wants to kill
    >> > the tracee - kill or tkill should be used.
    >>
    >> Regardless. We need to tell users what to expect after they do PTRACE_KILL.
    >
    > Once again, PTRACE_KILL == ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, SIGKILL), except it
    > doesn't return the error if the tracee is not stopped.

    Oleg, this doesn't explain the resulting behavior in terms understandable
    to mere mortals. *What will happen* when user does ptrace(PTRACE_KILL)?

    Yes, it's obvious that the tracee gets SIGKILLed, but will it report WIFSIGNALED
    or not? Userspace folks won't be 100.00% sure if we won't be exact about it.

    They may think "hmm... maybe this PTRACE_KILL thing is so powerful it makes
    it unnecessary to waitpid for the nuked process?", which actualy isn't such
    a stupid hupothesis - if tracer itself PTRACE_KILL's tracee, it doesn't want
    to know about it anymore, so why should it waitpid for it?


    >> >> When any thread executes exit_group syscall, every tracee reports its
    >> >> death to its tracer.
    >> >>
    >> >> ??? Is it true that *every* thread reports death?
    >> >
    >> > Yes, if you mean do_wait() as above.
    >>
    >> And will PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT happen for *every* tracee (which has it configured)?
    >
    > Oh. This depends on /dev/random. Most probably the exiting tracee
    > dequeues the (implicit) SIGKILL and report PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT. Oh,
    > unless arch_ptrace_stop_needed() is true. But it can exit on its own
    > or deque another fatal signal, then it won't stop because of
    > fatal_signal_pending().
    >
    > In short: this should be fixed. We already discussed this a bit (many
    > times ;), first of all we should define the correct behaviour. If you
    > ask me, personally I think PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT should be always reported
    > unless the task was explicitly killed by SIGKILL. But this is not clear.

    Documented with "KNOWN BUG:" tag.


    >> >> Kernel delivers an extra SIGTRAP to tracee after execve syscall
    >> >> returns. This is an ordinary signal (similar to one generated by kill
    >> >> -TRAP), not a special kind of ptrace-stop. If PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC option
    >> >> is in effect, a PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC-stop is generated instead.
    >> >>
    >> >> ??? can this SIGTRAP be distinguished from "real" user-generated SIGTRAP
    >> >>     by looking at its siginfo?
    >> >
    >> > Afaics no. Well, except .si_pid shows that the signal was sent by the
    >> > tracing process to itself.
    >>
    >> What about si_code? Is it set to SI_KERNEL for this signal?
    >
    > No, SI_USER.

    This is stupid. This signal is sent by kernel. Why is it flagged as "from user"?
    Maybe we should change it?

    (BTW, where is it generated in the kernel source? I found
    PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC generation, but failed to find
    "old-school SIGTRAP" generation code...)


    >> >> ??? Are syscalls interrupted by signals which are suppressed by tracer?
    >> >>     If yes, document it here
    >> >
    >> > Please reiterate, can't understand.
    >>
    >> Let's say tracee is in nanosleep. Then some signal arrives,
    >
    > note that the tracee is already interrupted here, sys_nanosleep()
    > returns ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK.
    >
    >> but tracer decides to ignore it. In tracer:
    >>
    >> waitpid: WIFSTOPPED, WSTOPSIG = some_sig  <===
    >> ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, pid, 0, 0)  ===>
    >>
    >> will this interrupt nanosleep in tracee?
    >
    > Yes and no. Once again, the tracee already returned from sys_nanosleep,
    > but it will restart this syscall (actually, it will do sys_restart_syscall)
    > and continue to sleep.

    Documented as such.


    >> >>       ptrace(PTRACE_cmd, pid, 0, sig);
    >> >> where cmd is CONT, DETACH, SYSCALL, SINGLESTEP, SYSEMU,
    >> >> SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP. If tracee is in signal-delivery-stop, sig is the
    >> >> signal to be injected. Otherwise, sig is ignored.
    >> >
    >> > There is another special case. If the tracee single-stepps into the
    >> > signal handler, it reports SIGTRAP as if it recieved this SIGNAL.
    >> > But ptrace(PTRACE, ..., sig) doesn't inject after that.
    >>
    >> This is part of missing doc about PTRACE_SINGLESTEP.
    >> From what you are saying it looks like PTRACE_SINGLESTEP
    >> implies PTRACE_SYSCALL behavior: "report syscall-stops".
    >
    > Hmm. Why do you think so?

    I am totally unfamiliar with PTRACE_SINGLESTEP.


    Thanks! Expect draft #3 soon.
    --
    vda
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-20 20:05    [W:0.067 / U:61.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site