[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080306080902.BDB1B2700FD@magilla.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:09:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] introduce ptrace_reparented() helper
> I am planning to do some changes in forget_original_parent (fix 2 very
> old minor bugs and _perhaps_ add some improvement). I hit the minor but
> nasty problem: this open coded __ptrace_unlink() in reparent_thread().
> _This_ is the actual reason for this patch.
>
> So. Would you object if I do
>
> --- kernel/ptrace.c 2008-03-03 17:01:06.000000000 +0300
> +++ kernel/ptrace.c 2008-03-05 20:22:44.801142777 +0300
> @@ -67,11 +67,12 @@ void ptrace_untrace(struct task_struct *
> * remove it from the ptrace list.
> *
> * Must be called with the tasklist lock write-held.
> + *
> + * Either the caller is ptracer, or the caller is ->real_parent
> + * and the child is not traced.
> */
> void __ptrace_unlink(struct task_struct *child)
> {
> - BUG_ON(!child->ptrace);
> -
> child->ptrace = 0;
> if (ptrace_reparented(child)) {
> list_del_init(&child->ptrace_list);
>
> ?
That seems ok. The duplication of magic in reparent_thread is indeed bad.
I don't think this BUG_ON is buying us much if we haven't hit it in a long
time.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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