[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220415105755.GA15217@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:57:56 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tj@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs PREEMPT_RT
On 04/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK, so far it seems that this patch needs a couple of simple fixes you
> pointed out, but before I send V2:
>
> - do you agree we can avoid JOBCTL_TRACED_FROZEN in 1-2 ?
>
> - will you agree if I change ptrace_freeze_traced() to rely
> on __state == TASK_TRACED rather than task_is_traced() ?
>
Forgot to say, I think 1/5 needs some changes in any case...
ptrace_resume() does wake_up_state(child, __TASK_TRACED) but doesn't
clear JOBCTL_TRACED. The "else" branch in ptrace_stop() leaks this flag
too. Perhaps I missed something, I'll reread 1/5 again, but the main
question to me is whether 1-2 actually need the JOBCTL_TRACED_FROZEN flag.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists