[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220427151455.GE17421@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:14:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
inux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] ptrace: Simplify the wait_task_inactive call in
ptrace_check_attach
On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
> was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
> after calling "set_special_state(TASK_TRACED)". With the recent
> cleanups ptrace_stop will always stop after calling set_special_state.
>
> Take advatnage of this by no longer asking wait_task_inactive to
> verify the state. If a bug is hit and wait_task_inactive does not
> succeed warn and return -ESRCH.
ACK, but I think that the changelog is wrong.
We could do this right after may_ptrace_stop() has gone. This doesn't
depend on the previous changes in this series.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists