[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110221161140.GA24336@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:11:40 +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: [pseudo patch] ptrace should respect the group stop
On 02/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/21, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > That preciesly is what is being discussed. IIUC, Oleg and Roland are
> > saying that the tracee should enter group stop but not ptrace trap at
> > that point and then transition into ptrace trap on the first PTRACE
> > call.
>
> Actually I am not saying this (at least now, probably I did).
>
> Once again. We have the bug with arch_ptrace_stop_needed(), but lets
> ignore it to simplify the discussion.
>
> Suppose that the tracee calls do_signal_stop() and participates in the
> group stop. To me, it doesn't really matter (in the context of this
> discussion) if it stops in TASK_STOPPED or TASK_TRACED (and where it
> stops).
>
> However, I am starting to agree that TASK_TRACED looks more clean.
>
> What is important, I think ptrace should respect SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED.
> IOW, when the tracee is group-stopped (TASK_STOPPED or TASK_TRACED,
> doesn't matter), ptrace_resume() should not wake it up, but merely
> do set_task_state(TASK_STATE) and make it resumeable by SIGCONT.
IOW. I mean something like the (uncompiled, incomplete) patch below as
as the initial approximation.
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ x/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -38,15 +38,15 @@ void __ptrace_link(struct task_struct *c
}
/*
- * Turn a tracing stop into a normal stop now, since with no tracer there
- * would be no way to wake it up with SIGCONT or SIGKILL. If there was a
- * signal sent that would resume the child, but didn't because it was in
- * TASK_TRACED, resume it now.
- * Requires that irqs be disabled.
+ * NEW COMMENT
*/
-static void ptrace_untrace(struct task_struct *child)
+static void ptrace_wake_up(struct task_struct *child)
{
- spin_lock(&child->sighand->siglock);
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ if (!lock_task_sighand(child, &flags))
+ return;
+
if (task_is_traced(child)) {
/*
* If the group stop is completed or in progress,
@@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ static void ptrace_untrace(struct task_s
child->signal->group_stop_count)
__set_task_state(child, TASK_STOPPED);
else
- signal_wake_up(child, 1);
+ wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED);
}
- spin_unlock(&child->sighand->siglock);
+ unlock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags);
}
/*
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ void __ptrace_unlink(struct task_struct
list_del_init(&child->ptrace_entry);
if (task_is_traced(child))
- ptrace_untrace(child);
+ ptrace_wake_up(child);
}
/*
@@ -312,8 +312,6 @@ int ptrace_detach(struct task_struct *ch
if (child->ptrace) {
child->exit_code = data;
dead = __ptrace_detach(current, child);
- if (!child->exit_state)
- wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED | TASK_STOPPED);
}
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
@@ -514,7 +512,7 @@ static int ptrace_resume(struct task_str
}
child->exit_code = data;
- wake_up_process(child);
+ ptrace_wake_up(child);
return 0;
}
--- x/kernel/signal.c
+++ x/kernel/signal.c
@@ -1644,8 +1644,11 @@ static void ptrace_stop(int exit_code, i
* If there is a group stop in progress,
* we must participate in the bookkeeping.
*/
- if (current->signal->group_stop_count > 0)
- --current->signal->group_stop_count;
+ if (current->signal->group_stop_count) {
+ // XXX: this is not enough, we can race with detach
+ if (!--current->signal->group_stop_count)
+ current->signal->flags = SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED;
+ }
current->last_siginfo = info;
current->exit_code = exit_code;
@@ -1825,6 +1828,9 @@ static int ptrace_signal(int signr, sigi
if (sigismember(¤t->blocked, signr)) {
specific_send_sig_info(signr, info, current);
signr = 0;
+ } else if (sig_kernel_stop(signr)) {
+ // XXX: not exactly right but anyway better
+ current->signal->flags |= SIGNAL_STOP_DEQUEUED;
}
return signr;
--
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