From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751590Ab1FAFeS (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 01:34:18 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:43963 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750859Ab1FAFeO (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 01:34:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Cj0TgRxsOOTLtyBimZR/gYa/JKkPkZKUE1AIzOaXX0ZVq83VQhf8xWtxqo50Ode8oJ OyRE2AUmqc6iEWcEhJI+jNId9EGdcrMPaBfG0LV0bsswCMT5PEwZCTC8yf2qrlfte3eU usMsfSdhpbc2toyKrAlXUCMolm2wFYlkhTYUM= Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:34:08 +0900 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Linus Torvalds , Denys Vlasenko , indan@nul.nu, bdonlan@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE Message-ID: <20110601053408.GD23067@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20110518095539.GU20624@htj.dyndns.org> <20110523124314.GA7232@redhat.com> <20110524102834.GC10334@htj.dyndns.org> <20110525182919.GB16575@redhat.com> <20110526091401.GD9715@htj.dyndns.org> <20110526150150.GD12525@redhat.com> <20110527182121.GA3212@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110530192255.GB20616@redhat.com> <20110531190809.GA20691@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110531190809.GA20691@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Oleg. On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 09:08:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Speaking of this particular problem, it is really annoying. The leader > exits, and it even notifies the tracer. For what? waitpid() returns 0 > or hangs depending on WNOHANG, any ptrace() request fails with ESRCH. Hmm... can't we just allow PTRACE_DETACH after PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is reported? It doesn't involve changes to any visible behavior (other than allowing DETACH of course) and we don't lose anything. Haven't really thought about the implementation but I don't think this would be too difficult. Thanks. -- tejun