On 06/19, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > This is a user-visible behavior change. > Do we really have to introduce a separate > PTRACE_NOT_STUPID_DETACH? I hope not.
Oh, I think yes. > @@ -1062,7 +1060,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(ptrace, long, request, long, pid, > unsigned long, addr, > } > > ret = ptrace_check_attach(child, request == PTRACE_KILL || > - request == PTRACE_INTERRUPT); > + request == PTRACE_INTERRUPT || > + request == PTRACE_DETACH); There doesn't look right. For example ptrace_disable(). See the comment set_task_blockstep(). And flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() can race with the exiting task. And the setting of ->exit_code is racy too. And this makes the ptrace_unfreeze_traced() logic more confusing... but probably this is fine. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
