[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110519120723.GE627@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:07:23 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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
Hello,
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:38:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
I didn't understand that one, so you'll need to elaborate.
> Otherwise looks fine to me. Compared to V1, personally I like the new
> behaviour more. PTRACE_INTERRUPT and PTRACE_SEIZE do the same.
Great. :)
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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