[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110518183815.GA1064@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 20:38:15 +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, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_INTERRUPT
On 05/16, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> + case PTRACE_INTERRUPT:
> + /*
> + * Stop tracee without any side-effect on signal or job
> + * control. At least one trap is guaranteed to happen
> + * after this request. If @child is already trapped, the
> + * current trap is not disturbed and another trap will
> + * happen after the current trap is ended with PTRACE_CONT.
> + *
> + * The actual trap might not be PTRACE_EVENT_STOP trap but
> + * the pending condition is cleared regardless.
> + */
> + if (likely(child->ptrace & PT_SEIZED) &&
> + lock_task_sighand(child, &flags)) {
> + child->jobctl |= JOBCTL_TRAP_STOP;
The same race with do_signal_stop() afaics.
Otherwise looks fine to me. Compared to V1, personally I like the new
behaviour more. PTRACE_INTERRUPT and PTRACE_SEIZE do the same.
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