[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110509165857.GA30607@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:58:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_INTERRUPT
On 05/08, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Currently, there's no way to trap a running ptracee short of sending a
> signal which has various side effects. This patch implements
> PTRACE_INTERRUPT which traps ptracee without any signal or job control
> related side effect.
>
> The implementation is almost trivial. It uses the same trap site and
> event as PTRACE_SEIZE. A new trap flag JOBCTL_TRAP_INTERRUPT is
> added, which is set on PTRACE_INTERRUPT and cleared when tracee
> commits to INTERRUPT trap. As INTERRUPT should be useable regardless
> of the current state of tracee, task_is_traced() test in
> ptrace_check_attach() is skipped for INTERRUPT.
Heh. As usual, I can never review the patches in time. Will continue
tomorrow.
Right now I am a bit puzzled why do we have 2 bits, JOBCTL_TRAP_INTERRUPT
and JOBCTL_TRAP_SEIZE... But I didn't read this + other patches yet.
At first glance, JOBCTL_TRAP_INTERRUPT has the same problem with the
killed tracee. I think this is easy to fix.
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