From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
jolsa@redhat.com, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Restore the stop PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:58:28 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d0nv4twr.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190213143852.GC9356@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:38:52 +0100")
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
> sorry for noise, but after I read the changelog I have a minor nit,
> feel free to ignore...
>
> On 02/12, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Skipping past dequeue_signal when we know a fatal signal has already
>> been delivered resulted in SIGKILL remaining pending and
>> TIF_SIGPENDING remaining set. This in turn caused the
>> scheduler to not sleep in PTACE_EVENT_EXIT as it figured
>> a fatal signal was pending.
>
> Yes, but the status of TIF_SIGPENDING doesn't matter. However I agree
> with recalc_sigpending() added by this patch, simply because this is what
> the "normal" dequeue_signal() paths do.
>
>> This also caused ptrace_freeze_traced
>> in ptrace_check_attach to fail because it left a per thread
>> SIGKILL pending which is what fatal_signal_pending tests for.
>
> this is possible too, but in the likely case ptrace_check_attach() won't
> be even called exactly because the tracee won't stop and thus waitpid()
> won't report WIFSTOPPED. And even if waitpid() "wins" the race and debugger
> calls ptrace(), most probably ptrace_freeze_traced() will fail because
> task_is_traced() will be false.
>
> I think this part of the changelog looks a bit confusing. It doesn't matter
> why ptrace_check_attach() fails, it must fail if the tracee didn't stop.
>
> PTACE_EVENT_EXIT won't stop and thus this event won't be reported, that is all.
There might be a better way to say it. What I meant to convey is that
in my testing I could get PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT to stop by clearing
TIF_SIGPENDING (and leaving SIGKILL in pending). That was insufficient
to fix the bug. Without SIGKILL in pending ptrace_check_attach would
fail when the process was stopped in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.
Or in short it really bugs me that we have to have signal_group_exit
and fatal_signal_pending not in agreement after in do_exit to make the code
work. It bothers me because fatal_signal_pending and signal_group_exit
are in all other cases just different ways to ask the same question.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-01 16:48 perf_event_open+clone = unkillable process Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-01 17:06 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-02 18:30 ` Jiri Olsa
2019-02-03 15:21 ` Jiri Olsa
2019-02-04 9:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-04 9:38 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-04 17:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-05 3:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-05 4:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-05 6:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-05 15:26 ` [RFC][PATCH] signal: Store pending signal exit in tsk.jobctl not in tsk.pending Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-06 12:09 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-06 21:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-06 18:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-06 22:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-07 6:42 ` [PATCH 0/2]: Fixing unkillable processes caused by SIGHUP timers Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-07 6:43 ` [PATCH 1/2] signal: Always notice exiting tasks Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-11 14:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-12 0:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-12 8:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-12 16:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-13 3:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-13 4:09 ` [PATCH] signal: Restore the stop PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-13 13:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-13 14:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-13 14:58 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2019-02-07 6:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] signal: Better detection of synchronous signals Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-11 15:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-12 0:01 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-12 17:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-07 11:46 ` [PATCH 0/2]: Fixing unkillable processes caused by SIGHUP timers Dmitry Vyukov
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=87d0nv4twr.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=colona@arista.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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
Powered by JetHome