Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Feb 2004 03:20:23 +0100 | From | Andries Brouwer <> | Subject | Re: More waitpid issues with CLONE_DETACHED/CLONE_THREAD |
| |
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:55:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I haven't really looked into the problem with Dan's test case yet (didn't > > seem to reproduce, but I haven't tried a current and cruft-free kernel yet). > > But I don't see any problem with the implementation of PTRACE_KILL. > > Hmm.. For me, Dan's program (with "-DBUG -DNOTHREAD") results in a > sleeping parent, and both children are likewise just sleeping. Despite the > fact that the parent just did the PTRACE_KILL on child2. > > I didn't trace it through the kernel, it just looked like PTRACE_KILL > didn't do anything.
I agree with both of you.
So, I think what happens is that PTRACE_KILL immediately after the PTRACE_CONT works because there is no schedule in between, so the effect of PTRACE_KILL is still seen by the (grand)child. Once the grandchild has returned it has become immune for PTRACE_KILL. Maybe there is no bug.
Andries - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |