[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090220022832.CA587FC2F7@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:28:32 -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>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] move exit_ptrace() from forget_original_parent() to
do_exit()
> If we ever change exit_ptrace() to do the blocking calls, it makes
> sense to move it after exit_signals().
I'm not sure I understand this comment. I guess you just mean that if we
block, we should be sure to do the exit_signals() pass-the-pending-buck
work afterwards. OK. But I think we want it after exit_signals anyway so
that ptrace_traceme() can check PF_EXITING (cf 1/4 review).
Also, I think this patch should be the very last of the series. The others
reorganize code but we don't think they really reorder anything. This one
we thinks reorders things in a way that's fine, but it clearly does a big
shift of the ordering of where ptrace cleanups happen relative to lots of
other tear-down. So that seems the most likely to cause some unimagined
subtle regression down the line. If it comes to a bisect that hits this
patch, I think we'd rather be comparing one with all those tweaks to
forget_original_parent merged in as the baseline than juggling their
incremental effects after this one's big reordering.
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