Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 12/14, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > > In the stopped cases, there are lots of locks and barriers and things
> > > after resuming.  (Oleg?)
> >
> > Every time the tracee resumes after TASK_TRACED it uses utrace->lock
> > to synchronize with utrace_control/etc, it must see any changes.
>
> And TASK_STOPPED?

SIGCONT can wake up the TASK_STOPPED tracee. I don't think the tracer
should ever rely on TASK_STOPPED (utrace never does). If the tracer
needs the "really stopped" tracee we have UTRACE_STOP, and this means
TASK_TRACED.

But I am not sure I understand this part of discussion... In any case
the tracee should see any changes which were done before the wakeup.
But TASK_STOPPED can't guarantee the tracee won't be resumed until
the tracer wakes it up. Of course, TASK_TRACED can't prevent SIGKILL,
but in this case we should only care about "the tracee can't resume
until we drop utrace->lock" case.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/