Re: [PATCH 13/16] ptrace: reorganize __ptrace_unlink() andptrace_untrace()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 07:15:16PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> OK. Of course, I do not blame this patch, this mimics the current
> behaviour.
> 
> But, afaics, this is not exactly right in the long term. Suppose
> that SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED is set but the tracee is running (this can
> happen if, say, debugger resumes the tracee and exits). In this case,
> I think this thread should be stopped too.

Yes, that would be the more consistent behavior.

> IIRC, I already tried to do this, but the patch (or idea) was nacked
> because it means another user-visible change. However, if we want to
> really fix things, we should fix this case too. If SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED
> is set, there should be no running threads after detach.

Aside from the user-visible change part, I don't think the
implemnentation would be difficult.

> Or. We can change the rules for ptrace_resume(), more on this later.

You haven't written this yet, right?  (I reconfigured / migrated my
mail setup during past few days so things are still a bit shaky.)

Thank you.

-- 
tejun
--
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/