Re: [PATCH -mm 0/3] ptrace: detach wakeup fixes

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/08, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Q: when the tracer exits we bypass ptrace_disable() and
> > clear_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE), is this correct?
>
> It's always been that way.  It's obviously wrong in an abstract sense.  But
> for me, ptrace today is purely about compatibility with how it's behaved in
> the past, however stupid that was--whenever it's been fully consistent and
> predictable, userland is already saddled with coping with the stupidity.
>
> > Perhaps we should move this code into __ptrace_unlink?
>
> Locking nightmare.  ptrace_disable can do stuff that may require the thread
> to be stopped like other ptrace operations require (fiddle registers),
> might include access_process_vm, etc.  Trust me, we don't want to go there
> now.

OK, thanks.

> (In case you were looking for reasons why I'll be soon advocating
> reorganization to get ptrace entirely out of the tasklist_lock arena, this
> is a fine example of the true horror that the current data structure set-up
> gives us.)

Heh. No, I don't need yet another reason to remove tasklist from ptrace ;)
This would be obviously great.

(btw, I do remember I promised the cleanup, will send a bit later).

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/