From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756122Ab1AaQHg (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:07:36 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:45786 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751114Ab1AaQHe (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:07:34 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=MIOE0g1F3pHqnkR0Kt4NPZiYclUAhk2gzefFkKY2B5bXztediR3XsI97NwjfqrVaCw svVfFhe6js2/vtEiaphgghrSMmUy4np+6LYhKOHmZIcBcPYwitNZc5KedM/A78X/VZRb cooMXSN0fbixDYZxHGM4ZDWOSmKvSqNAUdecs= Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:07:24 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Roland McGrath , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC] ptrace,signal: clean transition between STOPPED and TRACED Message-ID: <20110131160724.GO7459@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1293199257-11255-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20110118021417.D347A1807B7@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20110127154600.GE24925@htj.dyndns.org> <20110127174857.GG24925@htj.dyndns.org> <20110128204030.52D31183C1E@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20110131154117.GK7459@htj.dyndns.org> <20110131155411.GA1613@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110131155411.GA1613@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 04:54:11PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Are you sure late-ptrace-may-attach-check hangs? Perhaps it is the next > one, tracer-lockup-on-sighandler-kill, it needs a lot of time to finish. > IIRC, some time ago I did the testing with your patches applied (under > kvm), I didn't notice anything unexpected. > > Unfortunately, these tests are more or less "random", usually a new > test-case appears when we find a bug. I thought it was the first one but might be mistaken. I left it running for a couple of minutes several times but maybe it just needs more time. I'll try again. Thanks. -- tejun