Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     rjw@rjwysocki.net, oleg@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mgorman@suse.de, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tj@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220421150248.667412396@infradead.org>
        <20220421150655.001952823@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:26:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20220421150655.001952823@infradead.org> (Peter Zijlstra's
        message of "Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:02:53 +0200")
Message-ID: <878rrys5yj.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic
Precedence: bulk

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ static int ptrace_check_attach(struct ta
>  	}
>  	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>  
> -	if (!wait_task_inactive(child, TASK_TRACED) ||
> +	if (!wait_task_inactive(child, TASK_TRACED|TASK_FREEZABLE) ||
>  	    !ptrace_freeze_traced(child))
>  		return -ESRCH;

Do we mind that this is going to fail if the child is frozen
during ptrace_check_attach?

I think to avoid that we need to safely get this to
wait_task_inactive(child, 0), like the coredump code uses.

I would like to say that we can do without the wait_task_inactive,
but it looks like it is necessary to ensure that all of the userspace
registers are saved where the tracer can get at them.

Eric