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 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.