[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090602203939.GA13939@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:39:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH for 2.6.30] ptrace: revert "ptrace_detach: the wrong wakeup
breaks the ERESTARTxxx logic"
Commit 95a3540da9c81a5987be810e1d9a83640a366bd5 removed the "extra"
wake_up_process() from ptrace_detach(), but as Jan pointed out this breaks
the compatibility.
I believe the changelog is right and this wake_up() is wrong in many ways.
But GDB assumes that ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, child, 0, 0) always wakes up the
tracee. Despite the fact this breaks SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED/group_stop_count logic,
and despite the fact this wake_up_process() can break another assumption:
PTRACE_DETACH with SIGSTOP should leave the tracee in TASK_STOPPED case.
Because the untraced child can dequeue SIGSTOP and call do_signal_stop()
before ptrace_detach() calls wake_up_process().
Revert this change for now. We need some fixes even if we we want to keep
the current behaviour, but these fixes are not for 2.6.30.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -304,6 +304,8 @@ int ptrace_detach(struct task_struct *ch
if (child->ptrace) {
child->exit_code = data;
dead = __ptrace_detach(current, child);
+ if (!child->exit_state)
+ wake_up_process(child);
}
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
--
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