[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/8] kill tracehook_notify_death()

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 07:06:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> [PATCH v2 2/8] kill tracehook_notify_death()
> Kill tracehook_notify_death(), reimplement the logic in its caller,
> exit_notify().
> Also, change the exec_id's check to use thread_group_leader() instead
> of task_detached(), this is more clear. This logic only applies to
> the exiting leader, a sub-thread must never change its exit_signal.
> Note: when the traced group leader exits the exit_signal-or-SIGCHLD
> logic looks really strange:
> - we notify the tracer even if !thread_group_empty() but
> do_wait(WEXITED) can't work until all threads exit

Yeap, we've discussed this before and this indeed is odd. However, is
there something ptracer can't do with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT instead? If
PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT can be used instead for most practical purposes, I
think we're better off just documenting the fact and advise use of
PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT rather than trying to change the behavior.

> - if the tracer is real_parent, it is not clear why can't
> we use ->exit_signal event if !thread_group_empty()

I've been thinking a bit more about this and it doesn't seem that
changing this is necessarily a good idea. The current behavior does
make certain sense (overridden exit_signal is used only for the real
parent when the process is being reaped) and doesn't cause any actual
problem, so I don't think we need to change this behavior.

> + if (unlikely(tsk->ptrace)) {
> + int sig = thread_group_leader(tsk) &&
> + thread_group_empty(tsk) &&
> + !ptrace_reparented(tsk) ?
> + tsk->exit_signal : SIGCHLD;

Heh, I think this needs to be prettier even at the cost of an inline



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-25 16:19    [W:0.107 / U:3.876 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site