[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060904152307.GA98@oleg>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:23:07 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andreas Hobein <ah2@...air.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Markus Gutschke <markus@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Trouble with ptrace self-attach rule since kernel > 2.6.14
On 09/04, Andreas Hobein wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your kind assistance. It turned out that using vfork() or
> clone() would make a considerable redesign of my code necessary. While the
> added overhead from a "real" fork plus communication of the result over pipes
> is still acceptable, I currently have a lack of time to restructure my
> application to work with vfork or clone and its intrinsic restrictions. Also
> some more non-portable code would be added, which discourages me a bit also.
Could you test your application with 2.6.18-rc6 and this change
- if (task == current)
+ if (task->tgid == current->tgid)
reverted? I think any report, positive or negative, would be useful.
It would be nice if your test covers different conditions, such as
'main thread debugs sub-thread' and vice versa. Exec under ptrace is
also interesting.
> Since I'm rather clueless with regard to the kernel internals I'm afraid I
> can't add more value to this discussion other than to prove there is at least
> a second application out there being affected by this patch.
It's a pity to disappoint you, but you may be the 3rd :) Found this
unanswered message:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114073955827139
(the author cc'ed)
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