Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:20:16 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
       Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] resend, ptrace && SIGKILL fixes
Message-ID: <20080616142016.GA13339@tv-sign.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1020
Lines: 25

On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> These 2 patches don't depend on each other. Each change is user visible,
> and I am not really sure it can't confuse debuggers/etc. The explicit
> ack/nack from maintainers is wanted.

I'm mostly worried about do_exit()->ptrace_notify(), with these patches
we never notify the tracer if the tracee was SIGKILL'ed. The current
behaviour depends on arch_ptrace_stop_needed(), this is not good either.

Anyway, I think these patches are fixes. Suppose we send SIGKILL to the
traced task which does ptrace_notify(). If the signal is delivered before
ptrace_notify() takes ->siglock, the tracee sleeps in TASK_TRACED state
and becomes "unkillable". If ptrace_notify() wins, we kill the tracee.
This can't be good.

The 3rd patch is new.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/