Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1 | From | Bernd Edlinger <> | Date | Fri, 10 Apr 2020 01:52:52 +0200 |
| |
On 4/9/20 11:17 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: >> >> But no. While you are goind a good job at spotting odd corner >> cases that need to be fixed. This also is not the cause of the >> deadlock. It is nothing that subtle. > > So Eric, I'm now going to stop wasting my time on arguing with you. > > Since both you and Bernd claimed to be too busy to even bother testing > that thing, I just built it and booted it. > > And guess what? That thing makes your non-deadlock thing go away. > > So it's _literally_ that simple. >
You known I was right from the beginning :-) :-) (-: (-:, I said you would have to adjust the test. I only thought of the second part, so that is were I was wrong.
Yeah Thanks. My real problem is called OpenSSL 3.0 + FIPS and it feels like a very big pain in the ass......
But please tell nobody. That is a secret :-)
Thanks Bernd.
> Now, does it make the tests "pass"? No. > > Because the "vmaccess" test fails because the open() now fails - > because we simply don't wait for that dead thread any more, so the > /proc/<pid>/mem thing doesn't exist. > > And for the same reason that "attach" test now no longer returns > EAGAIN, it just attaches to the remaining execlp thing instead. > > So I'm not just good at "spotting odd corner cases". I told you why > that bogus deadlock of yours failed - the execve was pointlessly > waiting for a dead thread that had marked itself ptraced, and nobody > was reaping it. > > And it appears you were too lazy to even try it out. > > Yes, that whole "notify_dead" count vs "tsk->exit_state" test is > fundamentally racy. But that race happens to be irrelevant for the > test case in question. > > So until you can actually add something to the discussion, I'm done > with this thread. > > Linus >
| |