Re: [PATCH 4/9] ptrace: relocate set_current_state(TASK_TRACED) inptrace_stop()
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Mon May 16 2011 - 11:59:43 EST
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 05:51:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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.
> Why exit_code doesn't matter? task_stopped_code() needs
> task_is_stopped_or_traced() && exit_code != 0. Both changes should be
Because the actual exit_code is checked only after grabbing siglock.
As long as task_is_stopped_or_traced() is true, ptracer will grab
siglock and then check exit_code, so TASK_* is the only thing which
matters. Fragile, if you ask me - we don't have proper mechanism
around lockless do_wait() checks and synchronizations are just
scattered around the code.
> > All we need to update on the tracee is tracee->state and
> > ~JOBCTL_TRAPPING and __wake_up_sync_key() can be considered single
> > operation.
> Yes! IOW, it safe to reorder the memory operations which change ->state,
> ->exit_code, and ->jobctl. This only important thing is that we should not
> wake up the tracer before we change them.
> And if I remember correctly this was the problem, the early patches did
> something like
Right, try_to_wake_up() already contains smp_wmb(). We'll be fine
with __set_current_state(). Can we do it in a later patch?
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/