[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmsTd4FiAXjsFegE@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:21:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs
PREEMPT_RT
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:59:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Oleg pointed out that the tracee can already be killed such that
> > fatal_signal_pending() is true. In that case signal_wake_up_state()
> > cannot be relied upon to be responsible for the wakeup -- something
> > we're going to want to rely on.
>
> Peter, I am all confused...
>
> If this patch is against the current tree, we don't need it.
>
> If it is on top of JOBCTL_TRACED/DELAY_WAKEKILL changes (yours or Eric's),
> then it can't help - SIGKILL can come right after the tracee drops siglock
> and calls schedule().
But by that time it will already have set TRACED and signal_wake_up()
wil clear it, no?
> Perhaps I missed something, but let me repeat the 3rd time: I'd suggest
> to simply clear JOBCTL_TRACED along with LISTENING/DELAY_WAKEKILL before
> return to close this race.
I think Eric convinced me there was a problem with that, but I'll go
over it all again in the morning, perhaps I'll reach a different
conclusion :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists