Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bug in rev 1.3 of sys/i386/linux/linux_ptrace.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304141449510.26224-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030414161206.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > In the linux_ptrace() function there is the following code: > > case PTRACE_GETFPXREGS: { > #ifdef CPU_ENABLE_SSE > struct proc *p; > struct thread *td2; > > ... > > /* not being traced... */ > if ((p->p_flag & P_TRACED) == 0) { > error = EPERM; > goto fail; > } > > /* not being traced by YOU */ > if (p->p_pptr != td->td_proc) { > error = EBUSY; > goto fail; > } > > /* 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)? probably the 2nd option, except that I am not 100% sure without looking at the code, (which I don't have alot of time for right now) (you will sympathise more after June 4) (my Birthday BTW) that P_STOPPED_TRACE is fully implemented.. some other hands have been in there and I haven't followed what they did.. > > -- > > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0304141449510.26224-100000>