Re: [PATCH 4/9] ptrace: relocate set_current_state(TASK_TRACED) inptrace_stop()

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Mon May 16 2011 - 09:16:17 EST

Hey, Oleg.

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:57:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > and helps future updates to group stop participation.
> OK, so I assume we need this change.

We don't necessarily need it but it makes things prettier later.

> But the comment looks a bit confusing to me. This is fine, I almost never
> read them ;) Just I'd like to ensure I din't miss something.

Oleg, IIRC, those comments were taken from your email pointing out
that set_current_state() needs to happen before clearing of TRAPPING,
so, if you're confused, I'm confused too. :-)

> > + * We're committing to trapping. TRACED should be visible before
> > + * TRAPPING is cleared
> This looks as if you explain the barrier in set_current_state(). And,
> btw, why can't we use __set_current_state() here ?
> And. not only TRACED, at least ->exit_code should be visible as well.

The racy part was task_is_stopped_or_traced() in task_stopped_code()
and the value of exit_code doesn't matter at that point. So, we need
at least smp_wmb() between __set_current_state() and clearing

> IOW. It is not that TRACED should be visible before jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TRAPPING,
> we should correctly update the tracee before __wake_up_sync_key(), and I assume
> this is what the comment says.
> Correct?

All we need to update on the tracee is tracee->state and
~JOBCTL_TRAPPING and __wake_up_sync_key() can be considered single
operation. One doesn't make sense with the other. Anyways, if you
wanna update the comment, please go ahead.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at