[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101220145956.GC11583@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:59:56 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rjw@...k.pl, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] ptrace: kill tracehook_notify_jctl()
On 12/06, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> tracehook_notify_jctl() aids in determining whether and what to report
> to the parent when a task is stopped or continued. The function also
> adds an extra requirement that siglock may be released across it,
> which is currently unused and quite difficult to satisfy in
> well-defined manner.
OK. I agree, tracehook_notify_jctl() looks very unobvious, especially
because it is not really used currently.
The patch looks correct, except
> @@ -1853,21 +1850,19 @@ relock:
> if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_CLD_MASK)) {
> int why;
>
> - if (signal->flags & SIGNAL_CLD_CONTINUED)
> + if (task_ptrace(current) ||
> + (signal->flags & SIGNAL_CLD_CONTINUED))
> why = CLD_CONTINUED;
> else
> why = CLD_STOPPED;
Hmm, I can't understand this.
task_ptrace() should not turn CLD_STOPPED in CLD_CONTINUED?
Looking ahead, it _seems_ that the next patches keep this logic,
could you explain?
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