lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Add new PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP option, make it control new ptrace behavior.
On 09/05, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> Add new PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP option, make it control new ptrace behavior.
>
> Introduce new ptrace option, PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP. This makes API
> more symmetric: every PTRACE_EVENT_event has corresponding PTRACE_O_TRACEevent now,
> as it used to have before PTRACE_SEIZE was introduced.
>
> PTRACE_SEIZE does not assume PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP, but with this patch
> it allows any PTRACE_O_opts to be set at attach time

Well. This assumes that the only difference with PTRACE_SEIZE is the
new stop/interrupt behaviour. I am not sure this is "safe" to assume.

Tejun, what do you think?

From the correctness pov, the patch is mostly correct. but you forgot
to update ptrace_init_task(). I bet you didn't try to test the patch ;)

> int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long request,
> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data)
> {
> - bool seized = child->ptrace & PT_SEIZED;
> + bool stop_events_enabled = child->ptrace & PT_TRACE_STOP;

May be ptrace_event_enabled(child, PTRACE_EVENT_STOP) looks better...
The same about other PT_TRACE_STOP checks, although this is cosmetic.


And. Given that you can set/clear PT_TRACE_STOP in ptrace_setoptions(),
you need the locking.

Just for example. do_signal_stop() calls ptrace_trap_notify() and hits
WARN_ON_ONCE(!PT_TRACE_STOP) because it was cleared in between.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-06 22:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans