[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110214162036.GB11605@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:20:36 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
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 02/14, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:06:56PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think the root problem is not how ptrace detaches but how ptrace
> attaches and stops tracee.
Agreed, but please note that currently it is _very_ nontrivial to detach
correctly.
> If we have a clean way to seize the
> tracee, how we detach doesn't really matter. For example, a new
> ptrace call which stops the tracee and puts it in a ptrace command
> ready state without messing with the signal and group stop stuff.
Indeed. Also briefly discussed: PTRACE_INTERRUPT.
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