[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081016165727.GA6442@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:57:27 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <onestero@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SIGTRAP vs. sys_exit_group race
Roland, what do you think?
On 10/06, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1528,10 +1528,11 @@ static void ptrace_stop(int exit_code, i
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> arch_ptrace_stop(exit_code, info);
> spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> - if (sigkill_pending(current))
> - return;
> }
>
> + if (sigkill_pending(current))
> + return;
> +
Personally, I think this change is good anyway. The tracee shouldn't
sleep in TASK_TRACED with the pending SIGKILL.
And the current code is confusing, imho. Why do we check sigkill_pending()
under arch_ptrace_stop_needed() ? Yes, it unlocks ->siglock and can sleep,
so SIGKILL can come in between. But it is quite possible that SIGKILL is
already pending when we enter ptrace_stop().
The only problem I can see this patch adds a user-visible change, even
if this change looks good to me. For example, if we send SIGKILL to
the thread group, the tracee will not send PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.
I think we need further changes. If the thread group group was killed
by some fatal signal (but not SIGKILL) the tracee will sleep with
SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT, this is not nice too. But imho the patch makes
sense anyway.
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