[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201134037.GA25392@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:40:37 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: use safer wake up on ptrace_detach()
On 02/01, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> --- work.orig/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ work/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ int ptrace_detach(struct task_struct *ch
> child->exit_code = data;
> dead = __ptrace_detach(current, child);
> if (!child->exit_state)
> - wake_up_process(child);
> + wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED | TASK_STOPPED);
Well, it can't be TASK_TRACED at this point. And of course this still
contradicts to __set_task_state(child, TASK_STOPPED) in ptrace_untrace().
IOW, to me the previous patch makes more sense.
But OK, I understand Roland's concerns. And, at least this change
fixes the bug mentioned in 95a3540d.
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
--
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