ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach
Remove the "Nasty, nasty" lock dance in ptrace_attach()/ptrace_traceme() -
from now task_lock() has nothing to do with ptrace at all.
With the recent changes nobody uses task_lock() to serialize with ptrace,
but in fact it was never needed and it was never used consistently.
However ptrace_attach() calls __ptrace_may_access() and needs task_lock()
to pin task->mm for get_dumpable(). But we can call __ptrace_may_access()
before we take tasklist_lock, ->cred_exec_mutex protects us against
do_execve() path which can change creds and MMF_DUMP* flags.
(ugly, but we can't use ptrace_may_access() because it hides the error
code, so we have to take task_lock() and use __ptrace_may_access()).
NOTE: this change assumes that LSM hooks, security_ptrace_may_access() and
security_ptrace_traceme(), can be called without task_lock() held.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c
index 12e21a9..38fdfea 100644
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -167,7 +167,6 @@
int ptrace_attach(struct task_struct *task)
{
int retval;
- unsigned long flags;
audit_ptrace(task);
@@ -185,34 +184,19 @@
retval = mutex_lock_interruptible(&task->cred_guard_mutex);
if (retval < 0)
goto out;
-repeat:
- /*
- * Nasty, nasty.
- *
- * We want to hold both the task-lock and the
- * tasklist_lock for writing at the same time.
- * But that's against the rules (tasklist_lock
- * is taken for reading by interrupts on other
- * cpu's that may have task_lock).
- */
+
task_lock(task);
- if (!write_trylock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags)) {
- task_unlock(task);
- do {
- cpu_relax();
- } while (!write_can_lock(&tasklist_lock));
- goto repeat;
- }
-
retval = __ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH);
+ task_unlock(task);
if (retval)
- goto bad;
+ goto unlock_creds;
+ write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
retval = -EPERM;
if (unlikely(task->exit_state))
- goto bad;
+ goto unlock_tasklist;
if (task->ptrace)
- goto bad;
+ goto unlock_tasklist;
task->ptrace = PT_PTRACED;
if (capable(CAP_SYS_PTRACE))
@@ -222,9 +206,9 @@
send_sig_info(SIGSTOP, SEND_SIG_FORCED, task);
retval = 0;
-bad:
- write_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
- task_unlock(task);
+unlock_tasklist:
+ write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+unlock_creds:
mutex_unlock(&task->cred_guard_mutex);
out:
return retval;
@@ -240,26 +224,10 @@
{
int ret = -EPERM;
- /*
- * Are we already being traced?
- */
-repeat:
- task_lock(current);
+ write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+ /* Are we already being traced? */
if (!current->ptrace) {
- /*
- * See ptrace_attach() comments about the locking here.
- */
- unsigned long flags;
- if (!write_trylock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags)) {
- task_unlock(current);
- do {
- cpu_relax();
- } while (!write_can_lock(&tasklist_lock));
- goto repeat;
- }
-
ret = security_ptrace_traceme(current->parent);
-
/*
* Check PF_EXITING to ensure ->real_parent has not passed
* exit_ptrace(). Otherwise we don't report the error but
@@ -269,10 +237,9 @@
current->ptrace = PT_PTRACED;
__ptrace_link(current, current->real_parent);
}
-
- write_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
}
- task_unlock(current);
+ write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+
return ret;
}
