On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > This change is simply wrong no matter what. > > I've just tried to extend the existing > > /* > * Tracers may want to know about even ignored signals. > */ > return !t->ptrace; > > but I probably just do not understand what that actually means. I > thought that the tracer is _really_ interested in hearing about the > signal.
Yes, the tracer is really interested to know that a signal was sent to the _tracee_, not the tracer ;) > > > We could change do_notify_parent() > > to call signal_wake_up() if tsk->ptrace, but see above, this won't help. > > So does this mean WONTFIX? Can we at least document this behavior? It > surely is unexpected. No, no, no. Of course this must be fixed. The only problem is that I still do not know what should we do. I'll try to return to this problem next week. I'm afraid we will need to change de_thread() to wait until all other sub- threads have passed exit_notify() or even exit_signals(), but ooh I don't like this. Plus in this case we will need to finally define what PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT should actually do. Oleg.