Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:49:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, vda.linux@googlemail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, indan@nul.nu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] ptrace: move JOBCTL_TRAPPING wait to wait(2) and
	ptrace_check_attach()
Message-ID: <20110511164947.GA26383@redhat.com>
References: <1304869745-1073-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1304869745-1073-11-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1304869745-1073-11-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1997
Lines: 57

On 05/08, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> TRAPPING will also be used to implement end of group stop retrapping,
> which can be initiated by tasks other than tracer.  To allow this,

I didn't read the next patch yet, so I can't undestand/comment the
motivation.

But,

> this patch moves TRAPPING wait from attach completion path to
> operations which are actually affected by the transition - wait(2) and
> following ptrace(2) requests.

You know, I'd wish I could find the serious bugs in this patch. The
code becomes really hairy. -EAGAIN in do_wait() doesn't make it more
simple ;)

> Both wait and ptrace paths are updated to retry the operation after
> TRAPPING wait.  Note that wait_task_stopped() now always grabs siglock
> for ptrace waits.  This can be avoided with "task_stopped_code() ->
> rmb() -> TRAPPING -> rmb() -> task_stopped_code()" sequence

And so far I think this would be better, because it seems we can avoid
the retry logic.


First of all, this patch returns one of the user-visible and undesirable
changes. The tracer know that the task is stopped, attaches, and then it
can see the TASK_RUNNING tracee after ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH) returns.

I agree, this looks minor. But if we can tolerate this, probably we can
tolerate another oddity: wait_task_stopped() can succeed and eat the
stop code before the tracee actually stopps, no?

IOW, ignoring mb's and read-ordering, suppose that we simply change
task_stopped_code:

		if (ptrace) {
	-		if (task_is_stopped_or_traced(p))
	+		if (task_is_traced(p) || JOBCTL_TRAPPING)
				return &p->exit_code;
		} else {

As for ptrace_check_attach(), it can simply do wait_event(), we
only need to verify the caller is the tracer. No need to play with
lock/unlock/retry.

What do you think?

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/