From: Gerd K. <kr...@by...> - 2004-10-18 21:40:21
|
> > Yes, I see that as well, it actually *is* that ptrace change added in > > patch-2.6.9-rc1-bk16. > > > IMHO it is a bug, I've reported it to lkml a > > few days ago, no response yet. > > Oh well, did I lost it or you did not CC the UML mailing list? And in the 2nd > case, why? I didn't cc the uml list as it isn't a uml bug, its just that uml triggeres it. > I'm downloading the patches from BitKeeper. I'll attach the offending one for reference, also a short test app showing the buggy behavior. > > Problem is that you can't kill -9 processes any more which are ptraced > > _and_ stopped at the same time. > Sorry, tried kill -CONT? I'm almost sure it works (tried by both Henrik > Normstrod and me, not in this case). IMHO it is a clear bug in the (host) kernel, so I didn't attempt yet to workaround that by playing tricks in the UML kernel. I can't see the bug when reading the patch through, probably the separation of stopped and traced process states triggeres some odd corner case somewhere else in the kernel ... If you send a SIGKILL to the process being stopped & ptraced *nothing* happens. Neither the process is killed nor the ptracing parent is notified. That can't be correct. Gerd -- return -ENOSIG; |