[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110113112747.GE30719@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:27:47 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signal: fix SIGCONT notification code
Hello, Jan.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:41:36PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:13:15 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > If SIGCONT is received while the child process is stopped, the code should
> > be CLD_CONTINUED. If SIGCONT is recieved while the child process is in the
> > process of being stopped, it should be CLD_STOPPED.
>
> If a process does
> kill (PID, SIGSTOP);
> <varying delay, possibly even from a different process>
> kill (PID, SIGCONT);
>
> does it mean the PID's parent may get different waitid() results?
> Or even that PID will finally remain still `T (stopped)'?
Yeah, the @why part could be different with the fix. Before the fix
the result was indeterministic.
> I do not see it has any userland impact, the
> PTRACE_ATTACH-to-T(stopped)-process is already racy for different reasons.
I agree that it wouldn't have any userland impact especially given
that the previous behavior was rather indeterministic. It just fixes
an obvious bug which tested the wrong flag.
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