[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110113144011.GA28678@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:40:11 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, roland@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signal: fix SIGCONT notification code
On 01/12, 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?
No. The only problem is that SIGCHLD can come with the wrong
info.si_code/si_status
> Or even that PID will finally remain still `T (stopped)'?
No.
> I do not see it has any userland impact,
Yes, the problem is minor.
Still, this is the clear bug due to
SIGNAL_CLD_CONTINUED/SIGNAL_STOP_CONTINUED typo. And damn, it was
introduced by me ;)
> the
> PTRACE_ATTACH-to-T(stopped)-process is already racy for different reasons.
Please note that this bug affects !ptrace case too.
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