Re: [PATCH 1/5] ptrace: Prepare to fix racy accesses on taskbreakpoints

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:34:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Returning -ERSCH there would mean that the task struct doesn't exist,
> > or something confusing like this. Which is not true: the task exists.
> 
> Sure, we need a way of saying `you can't take a reference to the
> breakpoints for this task' without specifying why. So I guess -ESRCH is
> wrong but I don't know that -1 is correct either (then again, I'm not
> *too* bothered by it :).

-EBUSY perhaps? Well I took -1 by default...

> 
> > OTOH, the caller, which is ptrace, needs to take a decision when he
> > can't take a reference to the breakpoints. The behaviour is
> > to act as if the process does not exist anymore, which is about to
> > happen for real but we anticipate because the task has reached a
> > state in its exiting path where we can't manipulate the breakpoints
> > anymore.
> > 
> > So the rationale behind it is that -ERSCH is an interpretation
> > of the caller.
> > 
> > Right?
> 
> Yup.
> 
> For this and the ARM patch:
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>

Great! Thanks!
--
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/