This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    ptrace/x86: Partly fix set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr() logic

to the 3.4-stable tree which can be found at:
    
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     ptrace-x86-partly-fix-set_task_blockstep-update_debugctlmsr-logic.patch
and it can be found in the queue-3.4 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <[email protected]> know about it.


>From 667958738244e5be2cb1e05ab1f2a112c52e1c64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:06:42 +0200
Subject: ptrace/x86: Partly fix set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr() logic

From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

commit 95cf00fa5d5e2a200a2c044c84bde8389a237e02 upstream.

Afaics the usage of update_debugctlmsr() and TIF_BLOCKSTEP in
step.c was always very wrong.

1. update_debugctlmsr() was simply unneeded. The child sleeps
   TASK_TRACED, __switch_to_xtra(next_p => child) should notice
   TIF_BLOCKSTEP and set/clear DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF after resume if
   needed.

2. It is wrong. The state of DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF bit in CPU register
   should always match the state of current's TIF_BLOCKSTEP bit.

3. Even get_debugctlmsr() + update_debugctlmsr() itself does not
   look right. Irq can change other bits in MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR
   register or the caller can be preempted in between.

4. It is not safe to play with TIF_BLOCKSTEP if task != current.
   DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF and TIF_BLOCKSTEP should always match each
   other if the task is running. The tracee is stopped but it
   can be SIGKILL'ed right before set/clear_tsk_thread_flag().

However, now that uprobes uses user_enable_single_step(current)
we can't simply remove update_debugctlmsr(). So this patch adds
the additional "task == current" check and disables irqs to avoid
the race with interrupts/preemption.

Unfortunately this patch doesn't solve the last problem, we need
another fix. Probably we should teach ptrace_stop() to set/clear
single/block stepping after resume.

And afaics there is yet another problem: perf can play with
MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR from nmi, this obviously means that even
__switch_to_xtra() has problems.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <[email protected]>
Cc: Rui Xiang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/step.c |   14 +++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
@@ -161,6 +161,16 @@ static void set_task_blockstep(struct ta
 {
        unsigned long debugctl;
 
+       /*
+        * Ensure irq/preemption can't change debugctl in between.
+        * Note also that both TIF_BLOCKSTEP and debugctl should
+        * be changed atomically wrt preemption.
+        * FIXME: this means that set/clear TIF_BLOCKSTEP is simply
+        * wrong if task != current, SIGKILL can wakeup the stopped
+        * tracee and set/clear can play with the running task, this
+        * can confuse the next __switch_to_xtra().
+        */
+       local_irq_disable();
        debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
        if (on) {
                debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
@@ -169,7 +179,9 @@ static void set_task_blockstep(struct ta
                debugctl &= ~DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
                clear_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_BLOCKSTEP);
        }
-       update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
+       if (task == current)
+               update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
+       local_irq_enable();
 }
 
 /*


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from [email protected] are

queue-3.4/list-introduce-list_next_entry-and-list_prev_entry.patch
queue-3.4/ptrace-x86-partly-fix-set_task_blockstep-update_debugctlmsr-logic.patch
queue-3.4/ptrace-x86-introduce-set_task_blockstep-helper.patch
queue-3.4/x86-get_unmapped_area-access-mmap_legacy_base-through-mm_struct-member.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to