On 11/20, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:28:51 -0800 (PST)
> Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Andrew, it is very easy to send the new patch to fix the code, but is it
> > > possible to fix the changelog somehow for the patch in -mm tree?
>
> Sure, just send me
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andrew, it is very easy to send the new patch to fix the code, but is it
> > possible to fix the changelog somehow for the patch in -mm tree?
Sure, just send me the new text.
> I'd prefer a comment in the
> This is microoptimization, both ->signal and ->sighand are cleared at the same
> time in __exit_signal(), so we can check either. But we are using the value of
> ->sighand below, so it makes sense to read ->sighand, not ->signal.
Ok. Anality would suggest doing that in a separate patch, though
On 11/20, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Subject should be "kill PT_ATTACHED".
>
> > - (!(child->ptrace & PT_ATTACHED) || child->real_parent != current)
> > - && child->signal != NULL) {
> > +child->sighand != NULL) {
>
> This does s/signal/sighand/ without comment.
Ah yes,
Subject should be "kill PT_ATTACHED".
> - (!(child->ptrace & PT_ATTACHED) || child->real_parent != current)
> - && child->signal != NULL) {
> + child->sighand != NULL) {
This does s/signal/sighand/ without comment.
Otherwise the main thrust of the patch seems fine to
Since the patch
"Fix ptrace_attach()/ptrace_traceme()/de_thread() race"
commit f5b40e363ad6041a96e3da32281d8faa191597b9
we set PT_ATTACHED and change child->parent "atomically" wrt task_list lock.
This means we can remove the checks like "PT_ATTACHED && ->parent != ptracer"
Since the patch
Fix ptrace_attach()/ptrace_traceme()/de_thread() race
commit f5b40e363ad6041a96e3da32281d8faa191597b9
we set PT_ATTACHED and change child-parent atomically wrt task_list lock.
This means we can remove the checks like PT_ATTACHED -parent != ptracer
which were
On 11/20, Roland McGrath wrote:
Subject should be kill PT_ATTACHED.
- (!(child-ptrace PT_ATTACHED) || child-real_parent != current)
-child-signal != NULL) {
+child-sighand != NULL) {
This does s/signal/sighand/ without comment.
Ah yes, sorry, forgot to add the
This is microoptimization, both -signal and -sighand are cleared at the same
time in __exit_signal(), so we can check either. But we are using the value of
-sighand below, so it makes sense to read -sighand, not -signal.
Ok. Anality would suggest doing that in a separate patch, though I don't
Subject should be kill PT_ATTACHED.
- (!(child-ptrace PT_ATTACHED) || child-real_parent != current)
- child-signal != NULL) {
+ child-sighand != NULL) {
This does s/signal/sighand/ without comment.
Otherwise the main thrust of the patch seems fine to me.
Thanks,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew, it is very easy to send the new patch to fix the code, but is it
possible to fix the changelog somehow for the patch in -mm tree?
Sure, just send me the new text.
I'd prefer a comment in the code there
On 11/20, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew, it is very easy to send the new patch to fix the code, but is it
possible to fix the changelog somehow for the patch in -mm tree?
Sure, just send me the new text.
12 matches
Mail list logo
