On 03/12, Renzo Davoli wrote:
>
> I have update also the second patch. Please note that now this patch
> must be applied after the first one.
> This patch implements a consistent nesting model for utrace machines.
> (There is a full description in the messages I sent on Feb. 14 and Mar. 6)
This patch does 2 completely different things. I think you should
make separate patches.
Again, we need Roland's opinion, but could you explain why it would
be better to use _reverse in utrace_report_syscall_entry() ?
As for another change,
> --- linux-2.6.29-rc7-git5-utrace-p1/kernel/utrace.c 2009-03-12
> 11:05:50.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.29-rc7-git5-utrace-p2/kernel/utrace.c 2009-03-12
> 13:37:27.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1405,6 +1405,7 @@
> static bool finish_callback(struct utrace *utrace,
> struct utrace_report *report,
> struct utrace_engine *engine,
> + struct task_struct *task,
> u32 ret)
> {
> enum utrace_resume_action action = utrace_resume_action(ret);
> @@ -1426,6 +1427,7 @@
> spin_lock(&utrace->lock);
> mark_engine_wants_stop(engine);
> spin_unlock(&utrace->lock);
> + utrace_stop(task, utrace);
I don't think this is safe. If we do utrace_stop() here, the next engine
can be detached before we return (UTRACE_DETACH assumes it it safe to
unlink the engine when the target is stopped). This means we can't
continue list_for_each_entry(engine, &utrace->attached, entry) after
return from finish_callback().
Oleg.
