[ Upstream commit dbb5afad10 ]
Suppose we have 2 threads, the group-leader L and a sub-theread T,
both parked in ptrace_stop(). Debugger tries to resume both threads
and does
ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, T);
ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, L);
If the sub-thread T execs in between, the 2nd PTRACE_CONT doesn not
resume the old leader L, it resumes the post-exec thread T which was
actually now stopped in PTHREAD_EVENT_EXEC. In this case the
PTHREAD_EVENT_EXEC event is lost, and the tracer can't know that the
tracee changed its pid.
This patch makes ptrace() fail in this case until debugger does wait()
and consumes PTHREAD_EVENT_EXEC which reports old_pid. This affects all
ptrace requests except the "asynchronous" PTRACE_INTERRUPT/KILL.
The patch doesn't add the new PTRACE_ option to not complicate the API,
and I _hope_ this won't cause any noticeable regression:
- If debugger uses PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC and the thread did an exec
and the tracer does a ptrace request without having consumed
the exec event, it's 100% sure that the thread the ptracer
thinks it is targeting does not exist anymore, or isn't the
same as the one it thinks it is targeting.
- To some degree this patch adds nothing new. In the scenario
above ptrace(L) can fail with -ESRCH if it is called after the
execing sub-thread wakes the leader up and before it "steals"
the leader's pid.
Test-case:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <sys/ptrace.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <assert.h>
void *tf(void *arg)
{
execve("/usr/bin/true", NULL, NULL);
assert(0);
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
int leader = fork();
if (!leader) {
kill(getpid(), SIGSTOP);
pthread_t th;
pthread_create(&th, NULL, tf, NULL);
for (;;)
pause();
return 0;
}
waitpid(leader, NULL, WSTOPPED);
ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, leader, 0,
PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE | PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC);
waitpid(leader, NULL, 0);
ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, leader, 0,0);
waitpid(leader, NULL, 0);
int status, thread = waitpid(-1, &status, 0);
assert(thread > 0 && thread != leader);
assert(status == 0x80137f);
ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, thread, 0,0);
/*
* waitid() because waitpid(leader, &status, WNOWAIT) does not
* report status. Why ????
*
* Why WEXITED? because we have another kernel problem connected
* to mt-exec.
*/
siginfo_t info;
assert(waitid(P_PID, leader, &info, WSTOPPED|WEXITED|WNOWAIT) == 0);
assert(info.si_pid == leader && info.si_status == 0x0405);
/* OK, it sleeps in ptrace(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC == 0x04) */
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, leader, 0,0) == -1);
assert(errno == ESRCH);
assert(leader == waitpid(leader, &status, WNOHANG));
assert(status == 0x04057f);
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, leader, 0,0) == 0);
return 0;
}
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Acked-by: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Acked-by: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
aa039ddb54