From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was Vpid:) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:22:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20110616162220.GB3189@redhat.com> References: <20110615145527.4016.70157.stgit@bahia.local> <20110615190302.GA16440@redhat.com> <1308223158.8230.66.camel@bahia.local> <4DF9F657.7030605@fr.ibm.com> <20110616130613.GC19312@redhat.com> <4DFA126D.9060102@fr.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Cedric Le Goater , Greg Kurz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, xemul@openvz.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 06/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I remember there were a few very weird things with pids when ptracing > a process in another pid namespace. The only problems is pids. PTRACE_EVENT_FORK/etc reports the global pid. This is fixable. Some tracers look at syscall_get_return_value() register and get the "local" pid which they do not want. > It may be that ActivePid is enough > to allow the tracer to figure out the confusing information it is > getting. I don't think so. ActivePid doesn't help unless you know all pids in this container. > I would be surprised if using ptrace to send signals is how you > want to do things. Yes, yes, this is hack. Oleg.