This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 09/28/2016 08:12 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
On 28/09/2016 08:22, Rich Felker wrote:On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:03:41PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:On Sep 28 2016, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:This is a bad idea for at least one reason: running under strace seems to cause vfork _not_ to wait in the parent, leading to stack clobbering and runaway wrong code execution.This is not true. With modern kernels implementing ptrace events a tracer can correctly handle all clone variants including vfork.The problem might very well be limited to older (but still supported, I think) kernels or older versions of strace; I'm not sure. That's what I meant by saying I don't have a formula to reproduce the issue at the moment.
Rich, I value your comments, I really do, but this isn't actionable information, I'm afraid.
I am not convinced this specific issue should be a blocker for this patch. It seems quite limited in scope (running the process in strace) on older/not supported kernel. And the behaviour is clearly a kernel issue. Also I checked with CentOS 6 (2.6.32-642.el6.x86_64, strace 4.8) and it seems to follow the expected behaviour. I would also consider any deviation in more recent Linux releases as a kernel regression and I see no point and trying to support it.
Agreed, seems reasonable. Thanks, Florian
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |