Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-10 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/09, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Oleg below is my proof of concept patch, which really needs to be >> broken up into a whole patch series, so the changes are small >> enough we can do a thorough audit on them. Anyway take a look >> and see what

Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-10 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 12/09, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg below is my proof of concept patch, which really needs to be > broken up into a whole patch series, so the changes are small > enough we can do a thorough audit on them. Anyway take a look > and see what you think. Amazing ;) This patch certainly needs

Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-09 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/09, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Equally messed up is a our status in /proc at that point. Which >> says our sleeping process is a zombie. > > Yes, this is annoying. > >> I'm thinking we need to do at least some of the thread group leadership >>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 12/09, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Equally messed up is a our status in /proc at that point. Which > says our sleeping process is a zombie. Yes, this is annoying. > I'm thinking we need to do at least some of the thread group leadership > transfer in do_exit, instead of de_thread. Then p->g

Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-09 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/08, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > p->exit_state != 0 doesn't mean this process is dead, it may have > sub-threads. >> > >> > However, the new "p->exit_state && thread_group_empty(p)" check is not

Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 12/08, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > p->exit_state != 0 doesn't mean this process is dead, it may have > > sub-threads. > > > > However, the new "p->exit_state && thread_group_empty(p)" check is not > > correct > > either, this is just the tempor

Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-08 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > p->exit_state != 0 doesn't mean this process is dead, it may have sub-threads. > > However, the new "p->exit_state && thread_group_empty(p)" check is not correct > either, this is just the temporary hack. Perhaps we can just remove this > check, > but I

[PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

2007-12-08 Thread Oleg Nesterov
p->exit_state != 0 doesn't mean this process is dead, it may have sub-threads. However, the new "p->exit_state && thread_group_empty(p)" check is not correct either, this is just the temporary hack. Perhaps we can just remove this check, but I don't understand orphaned process groups magic. At all