Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 1/5] ptrace: Don't wait in PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT for exec or coredump

2017-04-05 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > In the case of exec and coredump which have many interesting deadlock > opportunities So this patch is very close to my 2/2 one-liner, except - you removed the current->mm == current->parent->mm check I didn't do this on purpose, because

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 1/5] ptrace: Don't wait in PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT for exec or coredump

2017-04-05 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > In the case of exec and coredump which have many interesting deadlock > opportunities So this patch is very close to my 2/2 one-liner, except - you removed the current->mm == current->parent->mm check I didn't do this on purpose, because

[RFC][PATCH v2 1/5] ptrace: Don't wait in PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT for exec or coredump

2017-04-02 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Take advantage of the fact that no ptrace stop will wait for a debugger if another process sends SIGKILL to the waiting task. In the case of exec and coredump which have many interesting deadlock opportunities and no one tests the what happens if you are ptraced during exec or coredump act like

[RFC][PATCH v2 1/5] ptrace: Don't wait in PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT for exec or coredump

2017-04-02 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Take advantage of the fact that no ptrace stop will wait for a debugger if another process sends SIGKILL to the waiting task. In the case of exec and coredump which have many interesting deadlock opportunities and no one tests the what happens if you are ptraced during exec or coredump act like