[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090210232324.399ADFC3DB@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:23:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] forget_original_parent: cleanup ptrace pathes
> It doesn't really hurt, but a bit ugly. Imho.
Agreed.
> How about below? Modulo comments and some other cleanups. For example,
> I think it is better to move the changing of ->real_parent into
> reparent_thread().
The exact split between reparent_thread and forget_original_parent (and
their names) never made much sense to me.
If ptrace_exit does its own lock/unlock, then it could move much earlier.
I'd be inclined to do it right before exit_signals(). But it should at
least short-circuit and not lock for list_empty(->ptraced), so we're not
adding a whole lock_irq/unlock_irq to the common case of no ptrace use.
> xxx = &p->real_parent->children;
> if (reparent_thread(father, p))
> xxx = &child_dead;
> list_move_tail(&p->sibling, xxx);;
I'd thought of this before. But I didn't mention it because I was afraid
to wonder what might care about the use of ->sibling. It really looks like
nothing does. This is clearly the clean and nice way to go if there is no
problem with it.
This change and moving ptrace_exit around should probably be separate patches.
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