[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100326133439.GA15790@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:34:39 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: Grzegorz Nosek <root@...aldomain.pl>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Testing lxc 0.6.5 in Fedora 13
On 03/26, Matt Helsley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:00:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > + ptrace_pid_vnr = nr;
> > > + if (unlikely(p->parent != p->real_parent)) {
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + ptrace_pid_vnr = task_pid_nr_ns(p, p->parent->nsproxy->pid_ns);
> >
> > Yes, this is what I meant.
> >
> > But we should not do this in do_fork().
>
> I'm puzzled. If not here, where should we do this? Or are you saying
> ptrace should take a reference to the pid,
Ah, no, sorry.
I meant tracehook_report_clone_complete should do this under "if (trace)".
And we need a helper to get the right pid, it could be used
by do_notify_parent() too, and (probably) we need more changes like this.
> > But once again. This change fixes the value in "tracee->ptrace_message == newpid",
> > but a quick grep shows that strace-4.5.19 doesn't use PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG at all.
>
> You are correct. However strace and gdb aren't necessarily the only users
> of ptrace so wouldn't it still be good to fix this?
Yes, agreed.
Oh. The only problem is utrace patches in -mm. I mean the possible textual
conflicts...
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