[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120509201219.GA32051@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 22:12:19 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
pacman@...h.dhis.org, linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: ptrace.2: PTRACE_KILL needs a stopped process too
On 05/09, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 04:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > probably not that big of a deal, but the reason i like using
> > ptrace(PTRACE_KILL) over a raw kill() is that you are less likely to kill the
> > wrong process by accident. maybe not that big of a deal in practice though.
>
>
> And you can do tgkill instead. It was specifically invented to handle the
> reuse case.
tgkill() can kill the wrong process/thread too, although it lessens the risk.
But I don't really understand the problem. The traced thread can't go away
until the tracer does wait/detach, and thus its pid can't be reused?
May be, "by accident" above means something else, not pid reuse...
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