Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 06/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> On 06/05, Luis Henriques wrote: >> > >> > /* Ensure that nothing can wake it up, even SIGKILL */ >> > -static bool ptrace_freeze_traced(struct task_struct *task) >> > +static bool ptrace_freeze_traced(struct task_struct *task, int kill) >> > { >> > - bool ret = false; >> > + bool ret = true; >> > >> > spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock); >> > - if (task_is_traced(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task)) { >> > + if (task_is_stopped(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task)) >> > task->state = __TASK_TRACED; >> > - ret = true; >> > + else if (!kill) { >> > + if (task_is_traced(task) && !__fatal_signal_pending(task)) >> > + task->state = __TASK_TRACED; >> > + else >> > + ret = false; >> > } >> > spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock); >> > >> > @@ -131,7 +135,7 @@ int ptrace_check_attach(struct task_struct *child, int kill) >> > * child->sighand can't be NULL, release_task() >> > * does ptrace_unlink() before __exit_signal(). >> > */ >> > - if (kill || ptrace_freeze_traced(child)) >> > + if (ptrace_freeze_traced(child, kill)) >> > ret = 0; >> >> I can't apply this patch, probably I misread it... >> >> But it looks very wrong. It seems that ptrace_freeze_traced(kill => true) >> always succeeds? Even if task is TASK_RUNNING/UNINTERRUPTIBLE/etc ? > > I am sorry for noise! > > Yes I misread the patch. Now I actually applied both patches and > I believe the fix is fine. > > ptrace_freeze_traced(kill => true) succeeds, but this is correct. > Somehow I confused this case with !kill. Great, thanks a lot for clarifying this, Oleg. Cheers, -- Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html