[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110214163346.GZ18742@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:33:46 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:15:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > PTRACE_CONT in this situation would do the same.
> >
> > This can be fixed by updating strace, right? strace can look at the
> > wait(2) exit code and if the tracee stopped for group stop, wait for
> > the tracee to be continued instead of issuing PTRACE_SYSCALL.
>
> Yes, in this particular case strace could be more clever.
>
> But. The tracee should react to SIGCONT after that, this means we
> shouldn't "delay" this stop or force the TASK_TRACED state.
Yeap, which is achievable by treating group stop differently from
ptrace traps and make it proceed to TASK_TRACED only if ptrace wants
to issue commands. (reiterating just to make sure there's no
misunderstanding)
> And note that in this case real_parent == debugger. Another case
> is more interesting, and this means we shouldn't delay or hide the
> notifications.
>
> (I just tried to summarize the previous discussion for Denys)
Agreed. We should be notifying both the real parent and ptracer.
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