Re: [PATCH 3/4] move exit_ptrace() from forget_original_parent() to do_exit()

[Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>]

> If we ever change exit_ptrace() to do the blocking calls, it makes
> sense to move it after exit_signals().

I'm not sure I understand this comment.  I guess you just mean that if we
block, we should be sure to do the exit_signals() pass-the-pending-buck
work afterwards.  OK.  But I think we want it after exit_signals anyway so
that ptrace_traceme() can check PF_EXITING (cf 1/4 review).

Also, I think this patch should be the very last of the series.  The others
reorganize code but we don't think they really reorder anything.  This one
we thinks reorders things in a way that's fine, but it clearly does a big
shift of the ordering of where ptrace cleanups happen relative to lots of
other tear-down.  So that seems the most likely to cause some unimagined
subtle regression down the line.  If it comes to a bisect that hits this
patch, I think we'd rather be comparing one with all those tweaks to
forget_original_parent merged in as the baseline than juggling their
incremental effects after this one's big reordering.


Thanks,
Roland