Re: [PATCH 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang afterPTRACE_ATTACH

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/13, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> For example, PTRACE_DETACH requires tracee to be stopped to succeed.
> If debugger tries to detach while the tracee is running, it will get
> an error. This forces debugger to do stupid things like sending SIGSTOP,
> then waiting for tracee to stop, then doing PTRACE_DETACH, then
> sending SIGCONT. Of course, while this dance is performed,
> any SIGSTOPs/SIGCONTs which may be  sent to the tracee by other processes
> are totally disrupted by this.

Yes.

> The natural (for me) fix is to make PTRACE_DETACH work even on running
> tracee. It simply makes a lot of sense. Why on earth do we need tracee
> to be stopped? There is no reason.

Agreed, but

> But this is a change in ptrace behavior, and therefore is not acceptable
> for Roland.

I agree with Roland. Not only this is too visible change, it is not clear
what detach-with-signal can do if the tracee is not stopped.

This was (very briefly) discussed recently. Probably we can implement
PTRACE_DETACH_RUNNING (the name is random) which doesn't require the
stopped tracee but ignores the "data" argument.

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/