[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110408185531.GA3697@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:55:31 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [path][rfc] add PR_DETACH prctl command
On 04/08, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>
> I updated patch to fix the race between wait_task_detached()
> and wait_task_zombie() by using is_detaching flag.
> Here's the patch.
> What problems do remain here?
Stas, sorry, I simply have no time to read this patch. Not to mention,
you know that I dislike it in any case.
I only quickly looked at the changes in sys_prctl and they are definitely
wrong.
> + me->real_parent = pid_ns->child_reaper;
> + if (thread_group_leader(me)) {
> + list_move_tail(&me->sibling,
> + &me->real_parent->children);
> + /* reparent threads */
> + p = me;
> + while_each_thread(me, p) {
> + if (!task_ptrace(p))
> + p->parent = pid_ns->child_reaper;
> + p->real_parent = pid_ns->child_reaper;
Why do you check thread_group_leader() ???? What if the caller is not
the leader?
I told this many times, and I got lost. If you reparent, you should
always reparent the whole group.
Also, you are doing do_signal_parent(me). I do not know what it does
(once again, I didn't read the patch), but this looks suspicious.
A sub-thread shouldn't notify the parent.
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