Re: PATCH? tracehook_report_clone: fix false positives

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/01, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This is where the utrace attachment point has to be (i.e. outside all the
> locking).

Yes I see. Quoting myself:

	Yes, utrace-ptrace will likely change this code further anyway
	and move the code from _init() to _report_clone() back, but in this case
	I guess the whole tracehook_finish_clone() will go away, so this change
	looks right anyway to me.

> So I don't see any benefit to changing the ptrace status quo now
> for its own sake.

OK, agreed.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/