On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov oleg@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/20, Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
On Sep 20, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Oleg Nesterov oleg@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think you can use task_struct->exit_code. If this task is ptraced, it can be changed/cleared in, say, ptrace_stop() after PROC_CN_MCAST_NOTIFY.
Thank you, that’s a good point! However, the use case of ptrace, which I assume is for mostly debug and tracing, is exclusive of the use case I am using it for
Well. I don't understand your use-case. Or any other use-case for drivers/connector/ that I know nothing about. But this is irrelevant.
The new PROC_CN_MCAST_NOTIFY functionality you propose should work regardless of
Yes, agreed.
whether this task is ptraced or not. But it doesn't because the usage of ->exit_code in your patch conflicts with the current usage of this field.
Ok, I see that ptrace_stop() seems to be using it in much the same way I want to use it - as a temporary place to store some values. Since in do_exit(), exit_code is overwritten, I didn’t think anyone was using it. Could I add a new field in the task_struct to store my value? (I don’t think there is any other unused/field I can use temporarily)
Anjali
So, NACK, sorry.
Oleg.