[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060822183431.GB469@oleg>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:34:31 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] futex_find_get_task: remove an obscure EXIT_ZOMBIE check
On 08/21, Bill Huey wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:06:04PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > (Compile tested).
> >
> > futex_find_get_task:
> >
> > if (p->state == EXIT_ZOMBIE || p->exit_state == EXIT_ZOMBIE)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > I can't understand this. First, p->state can't be EXIT_ZOMBIE. The ->exit_state
> > check looks strange too. Sub-threads or tasks whose ->parent ignores SIGCHLD go
> > directly to EXIT_DEAD state (I am ignoring a ptrace case). Why EXIT_DEAD tasks
> > should be ok? Yes, EXIT_ZOMBIE is more important (a task may stay zombie for a
> > long time), but this doesn't mean we should explicitely ignore other EXIT_XXX
> > states.
>
> The p->state variable for EXIT_ZOMBIE is only live for some mystery architecture
> in arch/xtensa/kernel/ptrace.c
Thanks. This
case PTRACE_KILL:
ret = 0;
if (child->state == EXIT_ZOMBIE) /* already dead */
break;
is an obvious bug, I beleive. May I suggest you to make a patch?
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists