lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: PATCH? tracehook_report_clone: fix false positives
Date
> I suspect you misread my previous question.

Apparently so.

> I didn't mean PTRACE_ATTACH should use ptrace_init_task). I just meant that
> perhaps it makes sense to move sigaddset() from tracehook_finish_clone()
> to tracehook_finish_clone()->ptrace_init_task().

You mean from tracehook_report_clone to ptrace_init_task. Perhaps.
tracehook_finish_clone->ptrace_init_task is inside write_lock_irq,
so it should really be kept to the minimum of what has to be inside there.

But the real reason is just that tracehook_report_clone() is called at the
place in do_fork() where the ptrace SIGSTOP code was originally before the
introduction of tracehook.h.

This is where the utrace attachment point has to be (i.e. outside all the
locking). So I don't see any benefit to changing the ptrace status quo now
for its own sake.


Thanks,
Roland


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-02 01:23    [W:0.049 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site