lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] ptrace: Stop supporting SIGKILL for PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:43:37AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Recently I had a conversation where it was pointed out to me that
>> SIGKILL sent to a tracee stropped in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is quite
>> difficult for a tracer to handle.
>>
>> Keeping SIGKILL working for anything after the process has been killed
>> is also a real pain from an implementation point of view.
>>
>> So I am attempting to remove this wart in the userspace API and see
>> if anyone cares.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> With this series s390 hits the warning exactly same way. Is that expected?

Yes. I was working on this before I got your mysterious bug report. I
included you because I am including everyone I know who deals with the
userspace side of this since I am very deliberately changing the user
visible behavior of PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.

I am going to start seeing if I can find any possible explanation for
your regression report. Since I don't have much to go on I expect I
will have to revert the last change in my ptrace_stop series that
apparently triggers the WARN_ON you reported. I really would have
expected the WARN_ON to be triggered in the patch in which it was
introduced, not the final patch in the series.


To the best of my knowledge changing PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is both desirable
from a userspace semantics standpoint and from a kernel implementation
standpoint. If someone knows any differently and depends upon sending
SIGKILL to processes in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT to steal the process away from
the tracer I would love to hear about that case.

Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-23 23:55    [W:1.246 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site