lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-01 20:29    [W:0.256 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site