From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add UNSUPPORTED check in elf/tst-pldd.
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:34:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7b2d2bb-a75e-0916-1955-74f1c1747d28@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <158c26d5-a6cc-37a9-2b23-dc8a45f52217@linux.ibm.com>
On 03/09/2019 03:30, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 9/2/19 9:37 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/08/2019 05:47, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Stefan Liebler:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/19 11:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>> * Stefan Liebler:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Â Â static void
>>>>>> Â Â target_process (void *arg)
>>>>>> Â Â {
>>>>>> +Â if (ptrace_scope == 1)
>>>>>> +Â Â Â {
>>>>>> +Â Â Â Â Â /* YAMA is configured to "restricted ptrace".
>>>>>> +    Disable the restriction for this subprocess. */
>>>>>> +Â Â Â Â Â support_ptrace_process_set_ptracer_any ();
>>>>>> +Â Â Â }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> Â Â Â Â pause ();
>>>>>> Â Â }
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this has a race condition if pldd attaches to the process before
>>>>> the support_ptrace_process_set_ptracer_any call. I have no idea how
>>>>> hard it is in practice to hit this race. It should be possible to use a
>>>>> process-shared barrier or some other form of synchronization to avoid
>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Florian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've added a synchronization with stdatomic.h on a shared memory mapping.
>>>> I've not used pthread* functions as I don't want to link against
>>>> libpthread.so. Then further adjustments are needed.
>>>>
>>>> Or should I just restrict the test ptrace_scope 0 as Adhemerval has
>>>> proposed in his post?
>>>
>>> Is it possible to create a process tree like this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Â Â parent (performs output checks)
>>> Â Â Â Â subprocess 1 (becomes pldd via execve)
>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â subprocess 2
>>>
>>> If you execve pldd from subprocess 1, wouldn't subprocess 2 in its
>>> ptrace scope for ptrace_scope < 2?
>>
>> Do we really need that ad-hoc support on tst-pldd to make it support
>> ptrace_scope 1?
>>
>> I don't oppose the support Stefan has added on latest iteration to
>> make it work, but this is a lot of code to support a very specific
>> scenario...
>>
> As there are systems where ptrace_scope is configured to 1 by default, we should adjust the testcase as the FAIL is misleading.
> (I've just recognized that Steve Ellcey had also seen this FAIL: https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-07/msg00618.html)
>
> The minimum change should be to detect ptrace_scope == 1 and mark the test as UNSUPPORTED. Or we change a bit more and let the test also run in this scenario. (Either by support_ptrace_process_set_ptracer_any or adjusting the subprocess-tree)
Yes, my initial suggestion was just to make it as UNSUPPORTED for ptrace_scope >= 1.
But I do not oppose adjusting it to run on ptrace_scope 1, it is just that
the required hackery lead to make it somewhat as complex than the test itself.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-03 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-27 10:19 Stefan Liebler
2019-08-27 15:06 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-08-27 15:14 ` Florian Weimer
2019-08-27 19:11 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-08-28 9:06 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-08-28 9:24 ` Florian Weimer
2019-08-28 14:42 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-08-29 8:47 ` Florian Weimer
2019-09-02 15:28 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-09-17 13:31 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-09-17 15:17 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-09-18 10:45 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-09-18 15:18 ` Joseph Myers
2019-09-19 10:28 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-09-02 19:37 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-09-03 6:30 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-09-03 13:34 ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2019-09-06 3:21 ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-09-10 8:46 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-09-10 13:33 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-09-11 7:05 ` Stefan Liebler
2019-08-28 12:19 ` Adhemerval Zanella
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b7b2d2bb-a75e-0916-1955-74f1c1747d28@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=stli@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).