From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>,
jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
indan@nul.nu, bdonlan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:22:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110530192255.GB20616@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110527182121.GA3212@mtj.dyndns.org>
On 05/27, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > Or we can change do_wait() to detach a zombie leader. In this case it
> > > > is not clear what should we do if the debugger is the real parent.
> > > > Perhaps do_wait() should do the same: detach a leader (but not reap).
> > > > When the last thread does, the real parent will be notified again.
> > > > IOW, wait(tgid) can succeed twice.
> > >
> > > Just letting PTRACE_DETACH work for zombies sounds much simpler to me.
> >
> > Probably, but please note we have to modify do_wait() anyway. Otherwise
> > in general the tracer simply can not know the tracee has exited. IOW,
> > waitpid(zombie_leader_pid, WEXITED) should succeed without reaping if
> > delay_group_leader(), then the tracer can do PTRACE_DETACH. But this is
> > not symmetrical with sub-thread zombies.
>
> Yes, complicated. The task/process duality conflicts. wait(2)
> already is different for group leader and succeeds twice for the
> ptracer and the real parent (when they're different).
>
> If we relocate ptrace group leader zombie wait, as suggested, such
> that it waits for the task itself rather than the whole group, we
> would be taking away a feature - ptracer waiting for the whole process
Partly yes. The parent will be notified again and it can do another
wait() later. The problem is, this is confusing.
> I think group leader wait becoming asymmetrical with sub-thread
> zombies is perfectly fine - it already is.
Well, probably yes... But why? We have to change do_wait() anyway to
report the death of the leader. If we do this, we can detach it as
well.
> But would it be okay to
> change ptrace wait(2) on group leader to wait for the task itself
> rather than the whole group?
Yes, this is iffy. Simply because this can confuse the userspace.
May be we can add W_PTRACED_THREAD_EXITED? (should be used instead
of WEXITED by ptracer). Or, perhaps WEXITED should succeed but put
something special into status?
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-30 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-16 18:17 [PATCHSET ptrace] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE/INTERRUPT and group stop notification, take#2 Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 01/10] signal: remove three noop tracehooks Tejun Heo
2011-05-17 16:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-17 16:27 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 18:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 12:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 02/10] job control: introduce JOBCTL_TRAP_STOP and use it for group stop trap Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 16:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-18 16:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 10:19 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 0:40 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-05-18 9:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 10:44 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-05-18 11:14 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 14:17 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 15:02 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 19:31 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-19 22:42 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-05-19 23:00 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-20 1:44 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-05-20 8:56 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-20 9:12 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-20 9:07 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-20 9:27 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-20 9:31 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-24 9:49 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-24 12:00 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-24 12:36 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-24 14:02 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-24 14:55 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-25 18:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-26 9:10 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-26 10:01 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-26 10:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-26 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-23 13:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-23 12:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-24 10:28 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-25 18:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-26 9:14 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-26 15:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-27 18:21 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-30 19:22 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
[not found] ` <BANLkTimupSd774N-VBoswOj+Dza=5ofvWQ@mail.gmail.com>
2011-05-31 19:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-31 21:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-06-01 20:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-06-01 5:34 ` Tejun Heo
2011-06-01 20:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-06-02 5:01 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 18:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 10:34 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 04/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_INTERRUPT Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 18:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 12:07 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 05/10] ptrace: restructure ptrace_getsiginfo() Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 06/10] ptrace: add siginfo.si_pt_flags Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 07/10] ptrace: make group stop state visible via PTRACE_GETSIGINFO Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 16:40 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 08/10] ptrace: don't let PTRACE_SETSIGINFO override __SI_TRAP siginfo Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 09/10] ptrace: add JOBCTL_BLOCK_NOTIFY Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 16:44 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 16:58 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-16 18:17 ` [PATCH 10/10] ptrace: implement group stop notification for ptracer Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 16:57 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 22:48 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-05-20 8:59 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-23 13:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-20 8:46 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 16:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-23 11:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-24 13:44 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-24 15:44 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-26 14:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-28 7:32 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-18 18:50 ` [PATCHSET ptrace] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE/INTERRUPT and group stop notification, take#2 Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 12:08 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 15:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-05-19 15:19 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-19 22:45 ` Denys Vlasenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110530192255.GB20616@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bdonlan@gmail.com \
--cc=indan@nul.nu \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vda.linux@googlemail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).