[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080628123825.GA1682@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:38:25 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: fix TASK_WAKEKILL vs SIGKILL race
On 06/09, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
^^^^^
Oops, something is wrong! I received this message today, 06/28.
> > Note this "__TASK_STOPPED | __TASK_TRACED" check in signal_pending_state().
> > This is needed to preserve the current behaviour (ptrace_notify). I hope
> > this check will be removed soon, but this (afaics good) change needs the
> > separate discussion.
>
> Agreed. I think it might actually already be safe to drop it, but we can
> get to that after this settles.
Great! I'll re-send the patch which drops it in a minute.
Could you also look at other patches?
[PATCH 2/3] ptrace: never sleep in TASK_TRACED if SIGKILL'ed
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121362601402886
[PATCH 3/3] ptrace: kill may_ptrace_stop()
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121362601702897
I think ptrace_stop() really needs changes. But I don't know what is
the supposed behaviour of PT_TRACE_EXIT. Should we sleep even if the
task was killed? Should we sleep if the thread was killed because another
one does exit_group() or exec() ?
We can use "SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT && (group_exit_code & 0x7f)" instead
of signal_group_exit() to be sure that task was killed by the fatal
signal.
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