[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CF3B0C8.7080200@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:55:20 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"@sisk.plpavel@....cz"@htj.dyndns.org,
"Jan Kratochvil \"" <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] ptrace: remove the extra wake_up_process() from
ptrace_detach()
Hello,
On 11/28/2010 09:44 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Today I lost the concentration at 13/14 ;)
>
> Will continue tomorrow. As for this patch,
Eh, well, you've already found enough holes in the patchset. It's
like a swiss cheese. I'll update and repost.
> On 11/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> This wake_up_process() has a turbulent history. This is a remnant
>> from ancient ptrace implementation and patently wrong. Commit
>> 95a3540d (ptrace_detach: the wrong wakeup breaks the ERESTARTxxx
>> logic) removed it
>
> Yes. This obviously means I personally like this change. In fact,
> I never understood this wakeup, and I was glad to find the reason
> to send the patch.
Another thing is that the use of wake_up_process() in ptrace is rather
scary even in ptrace_resume(). It will wake up even uninterruptible
sleeps. Is there any reason it's not just waking up
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | STOPPED | TRACED?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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