[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110214150656.GA8761@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:06:56 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang after
PTRACE_ATTACH
On 02/13, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> For example, PTRACE_DETACH requires tracee to be stopped to succeed.
> If debugger tries to detach while the tracee is running, it will get
> an error. This forces debugger to do stupid things like sending SIGSTOP,
> then waiting for tracee to stop, then doing PTRACE_DETACH, then
> sending SIGCONT. Of course, while this dance is performed,
> any SIGSTOPs/SIGCONTs which may be sent to the tracee by other processes
> are totally disrupted by this.
Yes.
> The natural (for me) fix is to make PTRACE_DETACH work even on running
> tracee. It simply makes a lot of sense. Why on earth do we need tracee
> to be stopped? There is no reason.
Agreed, but
> But this is a change in ptrace behavior, and therefore is not acceptable
> for Roland.
I agree with Roland. Not only this is too visible change, it is not clear
what detach-with-signal can do if the tracee is not stopped.
This was (very briefly) discussed recently. Probably we can implement
PTRACE_DETACH_RUNNING (the name is random) which doesn't require the
stopped tracee but ignores the "data" argument.
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