Re: [RFC 5/5 v2] uprobes: add global breakpoints

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 08/22/2012 03:48 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/21, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > This patch adds the ability to hold the program once this point has been
> > passed and the user may attach to the program via ptrace.
>
> Sorry Sebastian, I didn't even try to read the patch ;) Fortunately I am
> not maintainer, I can only reapeat that you do not need to convince me.

At least for the ptrace part I would prefer to have your blessing
instead something that seems to work but is wrong.

> > Oleg: The change in ptrace_attach() is still as it was. I tried to
> > address Peter concern here.
> > Now what options do I have here:
> > - not putting the task in TASK_TRACED but simply halt. This would work
> >    without a change to ptrace_attach() but the task continues on any
> >    signal. So a signal friendly task would continue and not notice a
> >    thing.
>
> TASK_KILLABLE

That would help but would require a change in ptrace_attach() or
something in gdb/strace/…

One thing I just noticed: If I don't register a handler for SIGUSR1 and
send one to the application while it is in TASK_KILLABLE then the
signal gets delivered. If I register a signal handler for it than it
gets blocked and delivered once I resume the task.
Shouldn't it get blocked even if I don't register a handler for it?

> > - putting the TASK_TRACED
>
> This is simply wrong, in many ways.
>
> For example, what if the probed task is already ptraced? Or debugger
> attaches via PTRACE_SEIZE? How can debugger know it is stopped?
> uprobe_wait_traced() goes to sleep in TASK_TRACED without notification.
> And it does not set ->exit_code, this means do_wait() won't work.
> And note ptrace_stop()->recalc_sigpending_tsk().

Okay, okay. It looks like it is better to stick with TASK_KILLABLE
instead of fixing the issues you pointed out.

> > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > @@ -1513,7 +1513,16 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >   			goto cleanup_ret;
> >   	}
> >   	utask->active_uprobe = uprobe;
> > -	handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
> > +	if (utask->skip_handler)
> > +		utask->skip_handler = 0;
> > +	else
> > +		handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
> > +
> > +	if (utask->state == UTASK_TRACE_WOKEUP_TRACED) {
> > +		send_sig(SIGTRAP, current, 0);
> > +		utask->skip_handler = 1;
> > +		goto cleanup_ret;
> > +	}
> >   	if (uprobe->flags&  UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP&&  can_skip_sstep(uprobe, regs))
> >   		goto cleanup_ret;
> >
> > @@ -1528,7 +1537,7 @@ cleanup_ret:
> >   		utask->active_uprobe = NULL;
> >   		utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
> >   	}
> > -	if (!(uprobe->flags&  UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP))
> > +	if (!(uprobe->flags&  UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP) || utask->skip_handler)
>
> Am I understand correctly?
>
> If it was woken by PTRACE_ATTACH we set utask->skip_handler = 1 and
> re-execute the instruction (yes, SIGTRAP, but this doesn't matter).
> When the task hits this bp again we skip handler_chain() because it
> was already reported.
>
> Yes? If yes, I don't think this can work. Suppose that the task
> dequeues a signal before it returns to the usermode to re-execute
> and enters the signal handler which can hit another uprobe.

ach, those signals make everything complicated. I though signals are
blocked until the single step is done but my test just showed my
something different. Okay, what now? A simple nested struct uprobe_task
and struct uprobe? Blocking signals isn't probably a good idea.

> And this can race with uprobe_register() afaics.

> Oleg.

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/