[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110523133426.GC7232@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:34:26 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] ptrace: implement group stop notification for
ptracer
On 05/20, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> 1. A process has two threads t1 and t2. t1 is ptraced by p1. Both t1
> and t2 are running.
>
> 2. p1 INTERRUPTs t1. t1 enters TRAP_STOP and p1 notices it.
>
> 3. Something else sends SIGSTOP to t2 which initiates group stop.
>
> 4. As t1 re-traps to notify p1 of group stop, p1 issues PTRACE_CONT.
>
> 5. PTRACE_CONT succeeds right after t1 re-traps for notification and
> t1 resumes execution.
IOW. The root of the problem is that TASK_TRACED no longer means the
tracee is stopped, it can change its state and the "volatile" info
in si_pt_flags reflects this fact.
This makes me nervous ;) Yes, we hide the TRACED->RUNNING->TRACED
transitions, and I have to agree that the proposed API looks consistent
to me. Still, can't we do this differently ? (see another email).
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