Re: [PATCH v4 0/12] ptrace: cleaning up ptrace_stop

["Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 05/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric W. Biederman (11):
>>>       signal: Rename send_signal send_signal_locked
>>>       signal: Replace __group_send_sig_info with send_signal_locked
>>>       ptrace/um: Replace PT_DTRACE with TIF_SINGLESTEP
>>>       ptrace/xtensa: Replace PT_SINGLESTEP with TIF_SINGLESTEP
>>>       ptrace: Remove arch_ptrace_attach
>>>       signal: Use lockdep_assert_held instead of assert_spin_locked
>>>       ptrace: Reimplement PTRACE_KILL by always sending SIGKILL
>>>       ptrace: Document that wait_task_inactive can't fail
>>>       ptrace: Admit ptrace_stop can generate spuriuos SIGTRAPs
>>>       ptrace: Don't change __state
>>>       ptrace: Always take siglock in ptrace_resume
>>>
>>> Peter Zijlstra (1):
>>>       sched,signal,ptrace: Rework TASK_TRACED, TASK_STOPPED state
>>
>> OK, lgtm.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> I still dislike you removed TASK_WAKEKILL from TASK_TRACED, but I can't
>> find a good argument against it ;) and yes, this is subjective.
>
> Does anyone else have any comments on this patchset?
>
> If not I am going to apply this to a branch and get it into linux-next.

Thank you all.

I have pushed this to my ptrace_stop-cleanup-for-v5.19 branch
and placed the branch in linux-next.

Eric