[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101221175415.GJ13285@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:54:16 +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,
rjw@...k.pl, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] ptrace: reorganize __ptrace_unlink() and
ptrace_untrace()
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 07:15:16PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> OK. Of course, I do not blame this patch, this mimics the current
> behaviour.
>
> But, afaics, this is not exactly right in the long term. Suppose
> that SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED is set but the tracee is running (this can
> happen if, say, debugger resumes the tracee and exits). In this case,
> I think this thread should be stopped too.
Yes, that would be the more consistent behavior.
> IIRC, I already tried to do this, but the patch (or idea) was nacked
> because it means another user-visible change. However, if we want to
> really fix things, we should fix this case too. If SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED
> is set, there should be no running threads after detach.
Aside from the user-visible change part, I don't think the
implemnentation would be difficult.
> Or. We can change the rules for ptrace_resume(), more on this later.
You haven't written this yet, right? (I reconfigured / migrated my
mail setup during past few days so things are still a bit shaky.)
Thank you.
--
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