[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110413151040.GC2277@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:10:44 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"v2.6.33.." <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ptrace: Prepare to fix racy accesses on task
breakpoints
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:34:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Returning -ERSCH there would mean that the task struct doesn't exist,
> > or something confusing like this. Which is not true: the task exists.
>
> Sure, we need a way of saying `you can't take a reference to the
> breakpoints for this task' without specifying why. So I guess -ESRCH is
> wrong but I don't know that -1 is correct either (then again, I'm not
> *too* bothered by it :).
-EBUSY perhaps? Well I took -1 by default...
>
> > OTOH, the caller, which is ptrace, needs to take a decision when he
> > can't take a reference to the breakpoints. The behaviour is
> > to act as if the process does not exist anymore, which is about to
> > happen for real but we anticipate because the task has reached a
> > state in its exiting path where we can't manipulate the breakpoints
> > anymore.
> >
> > So the rationale behind it is that -ERSCH is an interpretation
> > of the caller.
> >
> > Right?
>
> Yup.
>
> For this and the ARM patch:
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Great! Thanks!
--
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