Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 4/9/20 10:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:57 PM Bernd Edlinger
> <bernd.edlinger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The use case where this may happen with strace
>> when you call strace with lots of -p <pid> arguments,
>> and one of them is a bomb. strace stuck.
> 
> Yeah, so from a convenience angle I do agree that it would be nicer to
> just not count dead threads.
> 
> You can test that by just moving the
> 
>                 /* Don't bother with already dead threads */
>                 if (t->exit_state)
>                         continue;
> 
> test in zap_other_threads() to above the
> 
>                 count++;
> 
> line instead.
> 
> NOTE! That is *NOT* the correct true fix. I'm just suggesting that you

Eric, I think he means you, I am too busy with other work ;-) right now.

> try if it fixes that particular test-case (I did not try it myself -
> because .. lazy)
> 
> If Oleg agrees that we could take the approach that we can share a
> signal struct with dead threads, we'd also need to change the
> accounting to do that notify_count not when the signal struct is
> unlinked, but when exit_state is first set.
> 
> I'm not convinced that's the right solution, but I do agree that it's
> annoying how easily strace can get stuck, since one of the main uses
> for strace is for debugging nasty situations.
> 
>                 Linus
>