[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1wsroogi0.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:31:51 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ptrace_stop: remove the wrong ->group_stop_count bookkeeping
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
> ptrace_stop() decrements ->group_stop_count to "participate" in group stop.
> This looks very wrong to me, the task can in fact decrement this counter twice.
> If the tracee returns to the user-space before other threads complete the group
> stop, it will notice TIF_SIGPENDING and do it again.
This is one of those interesting weird cases. The ptrace interface remains per
task.
So need to handle a simultaneous thread group stop and a per task stop.
>
> Another problem is that we don't set SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED if the counter becomes
> zero.
>
> I must admit, I don't undestand the reason why this code was added, it is very
> old.
I haven't dug in enough yet to understand better, but it is my hunch we
need to do something when we have both kinds of stop happening simultaneously.
Eric
--
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