Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:21:57 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in rev 1.3 of sys/i386/linux/linux_ptrace.c Message-ID: <20030415231559.J1029@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20030414211239.GA843@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <XFMail.20030414161206.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030414211239.GA843@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 04:12:06PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > In the linux_ptrace() function there is the following code:
> *snip*
> > /* not currently stopped */
> > if ((p->p_flag & (P_TRACED|P_WAITED)) == 0) {
> > error = EBUSY;
> > goto fail;
> > }
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Now, since we've already checked P_TRACED above, this last
> > check will never fail. The diff in rev 1.3 was:
> >
> > - if (p->p_stat != SSTOP || (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0) {
> > + if ((p->p_flag & (P_TRACED|P_WAITED)) == 0) {
> >
> > So should this be (P_STOPPED|P_WAITED) instead? Or maybe just
> > (P_STOPPED_TRACE|P_WAITED)?
>
> I don't know the difference between P_STOPPED and P_STOPPED_TRACE
> but yes, we should check whether the process is stopped. The
> equivalent in sys/kern/sys_process.c is:
>
> if (!P_SHOULDSTOP(p) || (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0) {
>
> P_SHOULDSTOP(p) expands to:
>
> ((p)->p_flag & P_STOPPED)
>
> Using P_STOPPED makes us bug-for-bug compatible...
Isn't it, er, terrific to have not completelty trivial signal and
ptrace code rotting differently in 1 + ${N_ARCH} * ${N_COMPAT} places ;-).
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030415231559.J1029>