[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090209014355.GA27609@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 02:43:55 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/3] ptrace: detach wakeup fixes
On 02/08, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Q: when the tracer exits we bypass ptrace_disable() and
> > clear_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE), is this correct?
>
> It's always been that way. It's obviously wrong in an abstract sense. But
> for me, ptrace today is purely about compatibility with how it's behaved in
> the past, however stupid that was--whenever it's been fully consistent and
> predictable, userland is already saddled with coping with the stupidity.
>
> > Perhaps we should move this code into __ptrace_unlink?
>
> Locking nightmare. ptrace_disable can do stuff that may require the thread
> to be stopped like other ptrace operations require (fiddle registers),
> might include access_process_vm, etc. Trust me, we don't want to go there
> now.
OK, thanks.
> (In case you were looking for reasons why I'll be soon advocating
> reorganization to get ptrace entirely out of the tasklist_lock arena, this
> is a fine example of the true horror that the current data structure set-up
> gives us.)
Heh. No, I don't need yet another reason to remove tasklist from ptrace ;)
This would be obviously great.
(btw, I do remember I promised the cleanup, will send a bit later).
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