From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752989Ab1FBFB2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:01:28 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:32972 "EHLO mail-px0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751070Ab1FBFB0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:01:26 -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=vvlnxg8vIvcoVfaxgOX8Z2vW+m9qH0+M+F9l1hWUerfS3OcWQuJO+apIl+HcUmbMbF /0VQR1cImoW/AjtmPnbMKxpSXgKI8aGs8hR52h56nmky8grxEOJdeb4/AkjY40ufL4EY fP9pg++c0+3rwhfs/1v4LkpkzEU9kRAVXW7xs= Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:01:20 +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: <20110602050120.GA17434@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <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> <20110601053408.GD23067@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110601200807.GB9981@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110601200807.GB9981@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 Hey, On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:08:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hmm... can't we just allow PTRACE_DETACH after PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT is > > reported? > > Confused. PTRACE_DETACH surely works if the tracee reports EVENT_EXIT... > Could you explain what you meant? Right, I briefly forgot it's already a ptrace stop and was thinking about using PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT as the event notification point. Anyways, back to the topic. Maybe I misunderstood the problem but wasn't the problem about not being able to wait for the exit of a leader thread and detach it? We have reliable (sans exec but that's a different story) exit notification with EVENT_EXIT which even reports the exit_code, so I don't see what the problem is. What am I missing? Thanks. -- tejun