On 04/28, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes: > > >> The bug appears when the TRACEE makes it to schedule(). Inside > >> schedule there is a call to signal_pending_state() which notices > >> a SIGKILL is pending and refuses to sleep. > > > > And I think this is fine. This doesn't really differ from the case > > when the tracee was killed before it takes siglock. > > Hmm. Maybe.
I hope ;) > Previously we were actually guaranteed in ptrace_check_attach that after > ptrace_freeze_traced would succeed as any pending fatal signal would > cause ptrace_freeze_traced to fail. Any incoming fatal signal would not > stop schedule from sleeping. Yes. So let me repeat, 7/9 "ptrace: Simplify the wait_task_inactive call in ptrace_check_attach" looks good to me (except it should use wait_task_inactive(__TASK_TRACED)), but it should come before other meaningfull changes and the changelog should be updated. And then we will probably need to reconsider this wait_task_inactive() and WARN_ON() around it, but depends on what will we finally do. > I think in my tired mind yesterday I got lost too ;) > Still I would like to be able to > let wait_task_inactive not care about the state of the process it is > going to sleep for. Not sure... but to be honest I didn't really pay attention to the wait_task_inactive(match_state => 0) part... Oleg. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
