From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.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 1/2] signal: Always notice exiting tasks
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:50:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190212165022.GA29263@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871s4dctci.fsf@xmission.com>
On 02/12, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > Here I was trying for the simple minimal change and I hit this landmine.
> > Which leaves me with the question of what should be semantics of signal
> > handling after exit.
Yes, currently it is undefined. Even signal_pending() is random.
> > I think from dim memory of previous conversations the desired semantics
> > look like:
> > a) Ignore all signal state except for SIGKILL.
> > b) Letting SIGKILL wake up the process should be sufficient.
signal_wake_up(true) to make fatal_signal_pending() == T, I think.
> Oleg any ideas on how to make PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT reliably killable?
My answer is very simple: PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT must not stop if the tracee was
killed by the "real" SIGKILL (not by group_exit/etc), that is all. But this
is another user-visible change, it can equally confuse, say, strace (albeit
not too much iiuc).
But this needs another discussion.
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 99fa8ff06fd9..a1f154dca73c 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2544,6 +2544,9 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> }
>
> fatal:
> + /* No more signals can be pending past this point */
> + sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
Well, this is very confusing. In fact, this is not really correct. Say, we should
not remove the pending SIGKILL if we are going to call do_coredump(). This is
possible if ptrace_signal() was called, or after is_current_pgrp_orphaned() returns
false.
> + clear_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SIGPENDING);
I don't understand this change, it looks irrelevant. Possibly makes sense, but
this connects to "semantics of signal handling after exit".
OK, we need a minimal incremental fix for now. I'd suggest to replace
ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
if (signal_group_exit(signal))
goto fatal;
added by this patch with
if (__fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
goto fatal;
}
__fatal_signal_pending() is cheaper and looks more understandable.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-12 16:50 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 [this message]
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
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=20190212165022.GA29263@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=colona@arista.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.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=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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.