[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220428145750.GA15485@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:57:50 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
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, 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 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:19:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > That is also the reason I couldn't do wait_task_inactive(task, 0)
> >
> > Ah, I din't notice this patch uses wait_task_inactive(child, 0),
> > I think it should do wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED).
>
> Shouldn't we then switch wait_task_inactive() so have & matching instead
> of the current ==.
Sorry, I don't understand the context...
As long as ptrace_freeze_traced() sets __state == __TASK_TRACED (as it
currently does) wait_task_inactive(__TASK_TRACED) is what we need ?
After we change it to use JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL and not abuse __state,
ptrace_attach() should use wait_task_inactive(TASK_TRACED), but this
depends on what exactly we are going to do...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists