From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, vda.linux@googlemail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, indan@nul.nu, roland@hack.frob.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] ptrace,signal: Improve ptrace and job control interaction
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:58:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110328085824.GE16530@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110326182554.GA24315@redhat.com>
Hey,
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 07:25:54PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Explicit wake_up_state() without kick_process() is okay there because
> > if the code assumes that the tasks are guaranteed to pass through
> > signal delivery path whenever event worthy of notification happens
> > (either SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED or group_stop_count is set). PTRACE_CONT
> > breaks that as the tracee could be running in userland and thus the
> > solution is to add kick_process() as in signal_wake_up().
> >
> > Am I making any sense?
>
> Perhaps. This depends on how we define/implement the new behaviour.
>
> It is not clear to me what the new trap should actually do. And how.
> Either way, prepare_signal(SIGCONT) should do something with the
> ptraced threads, and this is what we should care about. Probably
> we can set TIF_SIGPENDING if task_ptrace() is true.
>
> Anyway we should ensure SIGCONT can't race with detach.
Hmmm... setting TIF_SIGPENDING and kicking the task to enter signal
delivery path doesn't have any side effect when it's running in
userland, which is the problematic case here anyway. Is there any
reason we should be careful about this?
> > * Before CLD_STOPPED notification for the incomplete-stop/cont
> > sequence can be made, recalc_sigpending() happens.
> >
> > * CLD_STOPPED notification is pending but TIF_SIGPENDING isn't set and
> > the task isn't in signal delivery path and can continue execution.
>
> This doesn't matter, or I misunderstood.
>
> We only add "SIGNAL_CLD_* | SIGNAL_STOP_CONTINUED" if we know there
> is at least one thread in get_signal_to_deliver()->do_signal_stop()
> paths. In this case we do not rely on TIF_SIGPENDING at all.
We set SIGNAL_CLD_STOPPED if group_stop_count wasn't zero, ie. if
group stop has initiated, which will be delivered as soon as any task
enters signal delivery path. So, there's a path that we schedule a
notification and doesn't enforce the delivery until something happens
and a task in the group gets called into signal delivery path somehow,
which is wrong. We need to call them into the delivery path on the
generation of the notification regardless of ptrace.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-28 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-23 10:05 Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 01/20] signal: Fix SIGCONT notification code Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 02/20] ptrace: Remove the extra wake_up_state() from ptrace_detach() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 03/20] signal: Remove superflous try_to_freeze() loop in do_signal_stop() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 04/20] ptrace: Kill tracehook_notify_jctl() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 05/20] ptrace: Add @why to ptrace_stop() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 06/20] signal: Fix premature completion of group stop when interfered by ptrace Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 07/20] signal: Use GROUP_STOP_PENDING to stop once for a single group stop Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 08/20] ptrace: Participate in group stop from ptrace_stop() iff the task is trapping for " Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 09/20] ptrace: Make do_signal_stop() use ptrace_stop() if the task is being ptraced Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 10/20] ptrace: Clean transitions between TASK_STOPPED and TRACED Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 11/20] ptrace: Collapse ptrace_untrace() into __ptrace_unlink() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 12/20] ptrace: Always put ptracee into appropriate execution state Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:05 ` [PATCH 13/20] job control: Don't set group_stop exit_code if re-entering job control stop Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 14/20] job control: Small reorganization of wait_consider_task() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 15/20] job control: Fix ptracer wait(2) hang and explain notask_error clearing Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 16/20] job control: Allow access to job control events through ptracees Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 17/20] job control: Add @for_ptrace to do_notify_parent_cldstop() Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 18/20] job control: Job control stop notifications should always go to the real parent Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 19/20] job control: Notify the real parent of job control events regardless of ptrace Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 10:06 ` [PATCH 20/20] job control: Don't send duplicate job control stop notification while ptraced Tejun Heo
2011-03-23 18:38 ` [PATCHSET] ptrace,signal: Improve ptrace and job control interaction Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-25 14:26 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-26 18:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-28 8:58 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-03-28 12:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-28 15:21 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110328085824.GE16530@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=indan@nul.nu \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=roland@hack.frob.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vda.linux@googlemail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome