Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:17:43 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ptrace: use safer wake up on ptrace_detach() |
| |
On 02/01, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 02/01, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > > --- work.orig/kernel/ptrace.c > > > +++ work/kernel/ptrace.c > > > @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ int ptrace_detach(struct task_struct *ch > > > child->exit_code = data; > > > dead = __ptrace_detach(current, child); > > > if (!child->exit_state) > > > - wake_up_process(child); > > > + wake_up_state(child, TASK_TRACED | TASK_STOPPED); > > > > Well, it can't be TASK_TRACED at this point. And of course this still > > contradicts to __set_task_state(child, TASK_STOPPED) in ptrace_untrace(). > > IOW, to me the previous patch makes more sense. > > Yeah, it can't be in TRACED but the whole point of the patch is > avoiding rude wakeups, so as long as it doesn't end up waking random > [un]interruptible sleeps... It will be removed later anyway.
Yes, yes, I understand.
> > But OK, I understand Roland's concerns. And, at least this change > > fixes the bug mentioned in 95a3540d. > > > > Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > Oleg, Roland, you guys are the maintainers, so how do you guys want to > route the patches which have been acked?
Well. I know only one way, send it to akpm ;)
> As it's likely that there > will be quite some number of ptrace patches, it will be better to have > a git tree.
Probably yes... but everything in this area goes through -mm so far.
Oleg.
| |