From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
anton@samba.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.33-rc8 breaks UML with Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:03:07 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100215180156.72AA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100215085743.GF12076@hack.private>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 03:59:26PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In message <20100214164023.GA2726@jm.kir.nu> you wrote:
> >> > It looks like the commit 803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921
> >> > (fs/exec.c: restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit) broke my
> >> > user mode Linux setup by somehow preventing system setup from running
> >> > properly (or killing some processes that try to mount things, etc.).
> >> > This commit turned up as the reason based on git bisect and reverting it
> >> > fixes my UML test setup (Ubuntu 9.10 on both host and in UML and AMD64
> >> > arch for both). I have no idea what exactly would be the main cause for
> >> > this issue, but this looks like a somewhat unfortunately timed
> >> > regression in 2.6.33-rc8.
> >> >
> >> > The failed run shows like this (with current linux-2.6.git):
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> > EXT3-fs (ubda): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode
> >> > VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly on device 98:0.
> >> > IRQ 3/console-write: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > IRQ 2/console: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > mountall: mount /sys/kernel/debug [218] killed by KILL signal
> >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /sys/kernel/debug
> >> > mountall: mount /dev [219] killed by KILL signal
> >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /dev
> >> > mountall: mount /tmp [220] killed by KILL signal
> >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /tmp
> >> > mountall: mount /var/lock [222] killed by KILL signal
> >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /var/lock
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > With 803bf5ec reverted, UML comes up and the output looks like this:
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> > EXT3-fs (ubda): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode
> >> > VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly on device 98:0.
> >> > IRQ 3/console-write: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > IRQ 2/console: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> >> > init: procps main process (226) terminated with status 255
> >> > fsck from util-linux-ng 2.16
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> Jouni,
> >>
> >> I can reproduce this now.
> >>
> >> We got the logic wrong in one of the cleanups and hence we aren't
> >> actually changing the stack reservation ever, when we intended on
> >> allocating up to 20 new pages.
> >>
> >> The:
> >> rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> >> always chooses stack_size hence we end up not changing the stack at all.
> >> This seems to cause fatal problems on UML, but is obviously not what was
> >> intended for archs as well.
> >>
> >> The following works for me on PPC64 64k and 4k pages and UML on x86_64.
> >>
> >> Let me know if it fixes it for you also.
> >>
> >> Mikey
> >>
> >>
> >> exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation
> >>
> >> 803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921 (fs/exec.c: restrict initial
> >> stack space expansion to rlimit) attempts to limit the initial stack to
> >> 20*PAGE_SIZE. Unfortunately, in also attempting ensure the stack is not
> >> reduced in size, we ended up not changing the stack at all.
> >>
> >> This caused a regression in UML resulting in most guest processes to be
> >> killed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> >> cc: <stable@kernel.org>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> >> index e95c692..e0e7b3c 100644
> >> --- a/fs/exec.c
> >> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> >> @@ -637,15 +637,16 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> >> * will align it up.
> >> */
> >> rlim_stack = rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) & PAGE_MASK;
> >> - rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> >> if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack)
> >> - stack_base = vma->vm_start + rlim_stack;
> >> + /* Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */
> >> + stack_base = vma->vm_start + max(rlim_stack,stack_size);
> >> else
> >> stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_expand;
> >> #else
> >> if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack)
> >> - stack_base = vma->vm_end - rlim_stack;
> >> + /* Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */
> >> + stack_base = vma->vm_end - max(rlim_stack,stack_size);
> >> else
> >> stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_expand;
> >> #endif
> >
> >- rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> >+ /* Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */
> >+ rlim_stack = max(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> >
> >is better fix?
> >
>
> Odd. If this is the right fix, 'stack_size" will be able to exceed
> stack rlimit, then Michael's previous rlimit patch will be useless.
> Am I missing something?
>
This function is in exec processing, IOW user process doesn't start yet,
and stack_size is always PAGE_SIZE.
No problem.
This expression only mean we parse "ulimit -s 1" as "ulimit -s 4".
(round up to one-page)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-15 9:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-14 16:40 Jouni Malinen
2010-02-14 22:03 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-15 2:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15 7:02 ` Jouni Malinen
2010-02-15 6:56 ` Jouni Malinen
2010-02-14 23:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-02-15 6:30 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-15 6:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15 7:17 ` Jouni Malinen
2010-02-15 8:57 ` [PATCH] exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation Michael Neuling
2010-02-15 9:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15 9:08 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-15 8:57 ` 2.6.33-rc8 breaks UML with Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit Américo Wang
2010-02-15 9:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2010-02-15 7:12 ` Jouni Malinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100215180156.72AA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=j@w1.fi \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®