[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110625141553.GX30101@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:15:53 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] kill tracehook_notify_death()
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:06:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> [PATCH v2 2/8] kill tracehook_notify_death()
>
> Kill tracehook_notify_death(), reimplement the logic in its caller,
> exit_notify().
>
> Also, change the exec_id's check to use thread_group_leader() instead
> of task_detached(), this is more clear. This logic only applies to
> the exiting leader, a sub-thread must never change its exit_signal.
>
> Note: when the traced group leader exits the exit_signal-or-SIGCHLD
> logic looks really strange:
>
> - we notify the tracer even if !thread_group_empty() but
> do_wait(WEXITED) can't work until all threads exit
Yeap, we've discussed this before and this indeed is odd. However, is
there something ptracer can't do with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT instead? If
PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT can be used instead for most practical purposes, I
think we're better off just documenting the fact and advise use of
PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT rather than trying to change the behavior.
> - if the tracer is real_parent, it is not clear why can't
> we use ->exit_signal event if !thread_group_empty()
I've been thinking a bit more about this and it doesn't seem that
changing this is necessarily a good idea. The current behavior does
make certain sense (overridden exit_signal is used only for the real
parent when the process is being reaped) and doesn't cause any actual
problem, so I don't think we need to change this behavior.
> + if (unlikely(tsk->ptrace)) {
> + int sig = thread_group_leader(tsk) &&
> + thread_group_empty(tsk) &&
> + !ptrace_reparented(tsk) ?
> + tsk->exit_signal : SIGCHLD;
Heh, I think this needs to be prettier even at the cost of an inline
function.
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