Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 05/19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:55:39AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > I've been thinking about Jan's suggestion to make ATTACH and DETACH
> > not require tracee to trap.  We already have this for DETACH for cases
> > where the tracer is killed and it seems it wouldn't be too difficult
> > to make that happen for ATTACH either and for that to be truly useful
> > I suppose PTRACE_SETOPTIONS shouldn't require trapped state either.
> > Jan, would that be enough for the use cases you have on mind?
>
> I've been trying this and clean DETACH requires the tracee to be
> trapped (or not running).  The arch detach hook, which BTW is not
> executed when the tracer is killed, modifies tracee state expecting it
> to be off-cpu.

Argh. Yes, ptrace_disable() is the problem, I didn't think about it :/

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/