Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:05:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:04:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:34445 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:03:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:10:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: [patch] ptrace-fix-2.5.33-A1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1089 Lines: 25 > > tsk->children: tsk's children, which are either untraced or traced by > > tsk. They have p->parent == p->real_parent == tsk. > > Chained in p->sibling. > > no - the way i wrote it originally was that only untraced children should > be on the tsk->children list. Traced tasks will be on the debugger's > ->children list, plus will be on the real parent's ->ptrace_children list. i cant see how a ->children list that includes all children (traced and untraced) can be useful. In fact it can be harmful: the debugger needs the traced children to be on his own child-list, ie. there's a conflict of use on the ->sibling list field. The ->ptrace_list entry is supposed to help this situation - obviously use of ->ptrace_list and ->sibling has to be mutually exclusive, no two parents can have the same task linked over ->sibling. Ingo - 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/