On 09/08, Pierre Morel wrote:
>
> --- linux-2.6.26.orig/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c
> +++ linux-2.6.26/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -409,6 +409,11 @@ handle_signal(unsigned long sig, struct
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> }
>
> + if (current->instrumentation) {
> + clear_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
> + current->instrumentation &= ~PTS_SELF;
> + }
> +
> return ret;
> }
I still think this patch shouldn't change handle_signal().
Once again. The signal handler for SIGSYS can first do
sys_ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_OFF) (which is filtered out), and then use any
other syscall, so this change is not needed, afaics.
The overhead of the additional PTRACE_SELF_OFF syscall is very small,
especially compared to signal delivery. I don't think this functionality
will be widely used, but this change adds the unconditional overhead
to handle_signal().
Btw, the check above looks wrong, shouldn't it be
if (current->instrumentation & PTS_SELF)
?
And. According to the prior discussion, this requires to hook every
signal handler in user space, otherwise we can miss syscall. But every
hook should start with PTRACE_SELF_ON, so I can't see any gain.
> +#define PTS_INSTRUMENTED 0x0001
> +#define PTS_SELF 0x0002
I don't really understand why do we need 2 flags, see also below,
> --- linux-2.6.26.orig/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ linux-2.6.26/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -543,6 +543,38 @@ asmlinkage long sys_ptrace(long request,
>* This lock_kernel fixes a subtle race with suid exec
>*/
> lock_kernel();
> + if (request == PTRACE_SELF_ON) {
> + task_lock(current);
> + if (current->ptrace) {
> + task_unlock(current);
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
> + current->instrumentation |= PTS_INSTRUMENTED|PTS_SELF;
> + task_unlock(current);
> + ret = 0;
> + goto out;
The code looks strange. How about
if (request == PTRACE_SELF_ON) {
ret = -EPERM;
task_lock(current);
if (!current->ptrace) {
set_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
current->instrumentation |= PTS_INSTRUMENTED|PTS_SELF;
ret = 0;
}
task_unlock(current);
goto out;
}
?
I don't understand how task_lock() can help. This code runs under
lock_kernel(), and without this lock the code is racy anyway.
> + }
> + if (request == PTRACE_SELF_OFF) {
> + task_lock(current);
> + if (current->ptrace) {
> + task_unlock(current);
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + clear_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
> + current->instrumentation &= ~PTS_SELF;
So. PTRACE_SELF_OFF doesn't clear PTS_INSTRUMENTED? How can the task
reset ->instrumentation ?
> + if (current->instrumentation) {
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + goto out;
> + }
So, PTRACE_SELF_XXX disables the "normal" ptrace. Not sure this is good.
Oleg.
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
___
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
