From: Jann Horn <jann-XZ1E9jl8jIdeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
<mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl.2: PR_SET_PDEATHSIG by orphan process
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:39:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160108163949.GA4313@pc.thejh.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <568FE223.20209-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4431 bytes --]
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 05:21:55PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Jann,
>
> Your mail is a little cryptic. It would be best to start with
> a brief summary of your point--something like the text of your
> patch at the end of the mail.
Ok, will do that next time. I wanted to avoid duplicating the content.
> On 01/06/2016 07:23 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > Proof:
> > In kernel/sys.c:
> >
> > case PR_SET_PDEATHSIG:
> > if (!valid_signal(arg2)) {
> > error = -EINVAL;
> > break;
> > }
> > me->pdeath_signal = arg2;
> > break;
>
> I don't understand how the code above relates to the point you
> want to make. (Or maybe you mean: "look, there's no check here
> to see that if the parent is already dead"; but it would help
> to state that explicitly).
Yes, that's what I meant.
> > Testcase:
> >
> > #include <sys/prctl.h>
> > #include <err.h>
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <signal.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> >
> > void ponk(int s) {
> > puts("ponk!");
> > }
> >
> > int main(void) {
> > if (fork() == 0) {
> > if (fork() == 0) {
> > sleep(1);
> > signal(SIGUSR1, ponk);
> > prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGUSR1, 0, 0, 0);
> > sleep(1);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > sleep(3);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > ---
> > man2/prctl.2 | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/man2/prctl.2 b/man2/prctl.2
> > index 5cea3bb..3dce8e9 100644
> > --- a/man2/prctl.2
> > +++ b/man2/prctl.2
> > @@ -670,6 +670,9 @@ In other words, the signal will be sent when that thread terminates
> > (via, for example,
> > .BR pthread_exit (3)),
> > rather than after all of the threads in the parent process terminate.
> > +
> > +If the parent has already died by the time the parent death signal
> > +is set, the new parent death signal will not be sent.
>
> In a way, this seems almost obvious. But perhaps it is better to make the
> point explicitly, as you suggest. But, because there may have been a
> previous PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, I'd prefer something like this:
>
> [[
> If the caller's parent has already died by the time of this
> PR_SET_PDEATHSIG operation, the operation shall have no effect.
> ]]
>
> What do you think?
I don't think "no effect" would be strictly correct because weird stuff
happens on subreaper death - I'm not sure whether this is intended or a
bug though:
$ cat deathsig2.c
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <err.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void ponk(int s) {
puts("ponk!");
}
int main(void) {
if (fork() == 0) {
prctl(PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER, 1, 0, 0, 0);
puts("enabled subreaper");
if (fork() == 0) {
if (fork() == 0) {
sleep(1);
puts("setting deathsig...");
signal(SIGUSR1, ponk);
prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGUSR1, 0, 0, 0);
sleep(2);
return 0;
}
puts("parent will die now, causing reparent to subreaper");
return 0;
}
sleep(2);
puts("subreaper will die now");
return 0;
}
sleep(4);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o deathsig2 deathsig2.c
$ cat deathsig3.c
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <err.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void ponk(int s) {
puts("ponk!");
}
int main(void) {
if (fork() == 0) {
prctl(PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER, 1, 0, 0, 0);
puts("enabled subreaper");
if (fork() == 0) {
if (fork() == 0) {
puts("setting deathsig...");
signal(SIGUSR1, ponk);
prctl(PR_SET_PDEATHSIG, SIGUSR1, 0, 0, 0);
sleep(3);
return 0;
}
sleep(1);
puts("parent will die now, causing reparent to subreaper");
return 0;
}
sleep(2);
puts("subreaper will die now");
return 0;
}
sleep(4);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o deathsig3 deathsig3.c
$ ./deathsig2
enabled subreaper
parent will die now, causing reparent to subreaper
setting deathsig...
subreaper will die now
ponk!
$ ./deathsig3
enabled subreaper
setting deathsig...
parent will die now, causing reparent to subreaper
ponk!
subreaper will die now
$
I didn't manage to find the reason for that in the code.
Sorry, I probably should have tried to figure out the details of
this before sending a manpages patch.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-08 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-06 18:23 [PATCH] prctl.2: PR_SET_PDEATHSIG by orphan process Jann Horn
[not found] ` <1452104606-25569-1-git-send-email-jann-XZ1E9jl8jIdeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>
2016-01-08 16:21 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
[not found] ` <568FE223.20209-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2016-01-08 16:39 ` Jann Horn [this message]
[not found] ` <20160108163949.GA4313-J1fxOzX/cBvk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-01-08 19:18 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
[not found] ` <56900BA1.6000708-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2016-01-17 18:13 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-01-17 18:15 ` Jann Horn
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=20160108163949.GA4313@pc.thejh.net \
--to=jann-xz1e9jl8jideowh0uzbu5w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).