From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org>
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124])
 by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1nk5an-007Ymb-U1
 for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:58:08 +0000
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:57:50 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] ptrace: Simplify the wait_task_inactive call in
 ptrace_check_attach
Message-ID: <20220428145750.GA15485@redhat.com>
References: <878rrrh32q.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20220426225211.308418-7-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <20220427151455.GE17421@redhat.com>
 <Ympvf1Pam1ckX+EA@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220428111911.GA3804@redhat.com>
 <YmqckaB+xB6azP1d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YmqckaB+xB6azP1d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
List-Id: <linux-um.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-um>,
 <mailto:linux-um-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-um/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-um@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-um-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um>,
 <mailto:linux-um-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "linux-um" <linux-um-bounces@lists.infradead.org>
Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, mgorman@suse.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, tj@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, inux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>

On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:19:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > That is also the reason I couldn't do wait_task_inactive(task, 0)
> >
> > Ah, I din't notice this patch uses wait_task_inactive(child, 0),
> > I think it should do wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED).
>
> Shouldn't we then switch wait_task_inactive() so have & matching instead
> of the current ==.

Sorry, I don't understand the context...

As long as ptrace_freeze_traced() sets __state == __TASK_TRACED (as it
currently does) wait_task_inactive(__TASK_TRACED) is what we need ?

After we change it to use JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL and not abuse __state,
ptrace_attach() should use wait_task_inactive(TASK_TRACED), but this
depends on what exactly we are going to do...

Oleg.


_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um