Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:40:31 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Dmitry Mikulin <dmitrym@juniper.net> Cc: freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcelm@juniper.net> Subject: Re: [ptrace] please review follow fork/exec changes Message-ID: <20120215174031.GB3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <4F3BE9C2.8040908@juniper.net> References: <20120209122908.GD3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4F34311A.9050702@juniper.net> <20120210001725.GJ3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4F3478B3.9040809@juniper.net> <20120213152825.GH3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4F3988E8.2040705@juniper.net> <20120213222521.GK3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4F3993C5.5020703@juniper.net> <20120215163252.GZ3283@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4F3BE9C2.8040908@juniper.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kafhcBLPEB+rLNbV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:22:10AM -0800, Dmitry Mikulin wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On 02/15/2012 08:32 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 02:50:45PM -0800, Dmitry Mikulin wrote:
> >>>>>It seems that now wait4(2) can be called from the real (non-debugger)
> >>>>>parent first and result in the call to proc_reap(), isn't it ? We wo=
uld
> >>>>>then just reparent the child back to the caller, still leaving the
> >>>>>zombie and confusing debugger.
> >>>>When either gdb or the real parent gets to proc_reap() the process
> >>>>wouldn't
> >>>>get destroyed, it'll get caught by the following clause:
> >>>> if (p->p_oppid&& (t =3D pfind(p->p_oppid)) !=3D NULL) {
> >>>>
> >>>>and the real parent with get the child back into the children's list=
=20
> >>>>while
> >>>>gdb will get it into the orphan list. The second time around when
> >>>>proc_reap() is entered, p->p_oppid will be 0 and the process will get
> >>>>really reaped. Does it make sense? And proc_reparent() attempts to ke=
ep
> >>>>the
> >>>>orphan list clean and not have the same entries and the list of=20
> >>>>siblings.
> >>>Right, this is what I figured. But I asked about some further implicat=
ion
> >>>of this change:
> >>>
> >>>if real parent spuriosly calls wait4(2) on the child pid after the chi=
ld
> >>>exited, but before the debugger called the wait4(), then exactly the
> >>>code you noted above will be run. This results in the child being fully
> >>>returned to the original parent.
> >>>
> >>>Next, the wait4() call from debugger gets an error, and zombie will be
> >>>kept around until parent calls wait4() for this pid once more.
> >>>
> >>>Am I missed something ?
> >>In this case the process will move from gdb's child list to gdb's orphan
> >>list when the real parent does a wait4(). Next time around the wait loo=
p=20
> >>in
> >>gdb it'll be caught by the orphan's proc_reap().
> >I do not see how the next debugger loop could find this process at all,
> >since the first wait4() call reparented it to the original parent.
>=20
> Not the debugger loop, the kern_wait() loop. The child get re-parented to=
=20
> the original parent but moves to the orphan list of the debugger process.
Either the debugger loop which calls wait4/waitpid, or the kern_wait loop
resulting from the debugger calling wait*.
Could you, please, describe, how the patched kernel moves the wait'ed
zombie to the orphan list of the debugger ?
For me, it seems that there is another bug, the child appears both on
the childdren list, and on the orphan list of the real parent.
--kafhcBLPEB+rLNbV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk877g8ACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hE7wCdEVmWWBP04dzRuzjjoTyg3G5g
QloAn2i2EukBi9Nen0Z+XVPhFQR/fyGs
=cXeQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--kafhcBLPEB+rLNbV--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120215174031.GB3283>