[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220421195551.GO2731@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:55:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, oleg@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tj@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:26:44PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>
> > --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> > @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct ta
> > }
> > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> >
> > - if (!wait_task_inactive(child, TASK_TRACED) ||
> > + if (!wait_task_inactive(child, TASK_TRACED|TASK_FREEZABLE) ||
> > !ptrace_freeze_traced(child))
> > return -ESRCH;
>
> Do we mind that this is going to fail if the child is frozen
> during ptrace_check_attach?
Why should this fail? wait_task_inactive() will in fact succeed if it is
frozen due to the added TASK_FREEZABLE and some wait_task_inactive()
changes elsewhere in this patch.
And I don't see why ptrace_freeze_traced() should fail. It'll warn
though, I should extend/remove that WARN_ON_ONCE() looking at __state,
but it should work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists