[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090504193624.GB17076@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:36:24 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace: do not use task_lock() for attach
On 05/04, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This looks good to me overall. It might be worth slicing it into two or
> more patches, just for bisect paranoia. (e.g. PF_KTHREAD; task_lock in
> ptrace_attach; task_lock in ptrace_traceme.)
OK,
> I think it merits a comment that the PF_KTHREAD check does not need any
> interlock because daemonize() will detach ptrace via reparent_to_kthreadd()
> after it sets PF_KTHREAD. (vs the old ->mm check under task_lock.)
Agreed, but actually the patch doesn't make the difference wrt daemonize().
currently ptrace_attach() can take task_lock() just before daemonize() calls
exit_mm().
> It is worth noting that this changes the security_ptrace_traceme() call so
> it's no longer under task_lock(). I can't see any way the LSM hooks care,
> but it is a change.
Yes, good point.
> You also didn't mention the s/|=/=/ changes. Those are correct, we've
> already agreed, but the commit log should mention that this subtle change
> was intentional.
Yes! Forgot to mention, thanks.
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