public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] ptraced process waiting on syscall may return kernel internal errnos
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:36:00 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1181774160.14818.333.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070613151530.GA232@tv-sign.ru>

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 19:15 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> This breaks cancel_freezing(). Somehow we should clear TIF_SIGPENDING
> for kernel threads. Otherwise we may have subtle failures if
> try_to_freeze_tasks() fails.

The freezer is crap... news at 11. Maybe a quick hack would be to let it
clear sigpending if tsk->mm == NULL but that's ugly. Note that there's
anything pretty about the freezer anyway...

> Also, whith this change do_sigaction()->recalc_sigpending_and_wake()
> doesn't make sense any longer, yes?

Well.. why was it _and_wake() in the first place anyway ? Or do I miss
something ? Why would we need to wake a thread for which we are removing
signals ?

What about something like:

			do {
				rm_from_queue_full(&mask, &t->pending);
-				recalc_sigpending_and_wake(t);
				t = next_thread(t);
			} while (t != current);
+			recalc_sigpending();

> > @@ -385,7 +391,8 @@ int dequeue_signal(struct task_struct *t
> >                       }
> >               }
> >       }
> > -     recalc_sigpending_tsk(tsk);
> > +     if (likely(tsk == current))
> > +             recalc_sigpending();
> 
> In theory, flush_signals(t) needs a similar change. However, it is
> always
> called with t == current. Perhaps it makes sense to make it
> flush_signals(void) ?

Agreed.

> Do you see any valid usage of flush_signals(t) when t != current ?
> 
> (Actually, imho the same is true for dequeue_signal(). Except for
> signalfd.c
>  dequeue_signal() should operate on current. Perhaps it would be a bit
> cleaner
>  to have dequeue_signal_tsk(tsk) and dequeue_signal(void), the latter
> does
>  recalc_sigpending).

That's been part of the discussion so far ... so yes, maybe. I also
think dequeue_signal_tsk would then only dequeue shared signals... But
then, that means signalfd would have to do a if (tsk == current) to
know which one to call...

So at the end of the day, easier to test it inside dequeue_signal().

Ben.



  reply	other threads:[~2007-06-13 22:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-06  5:47 [BUG] ptraced process waiting on syscall may return kernel internal errnos Satoru Takeuchi
2007-06-06 10:59 ` Roland McGrath
2007-06-06 15:35   ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-06 23:07     ` Paul Mackerras
2007-06-07  3:25     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-07  3:27     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-07 11:33     ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-06-07 15:54       ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-07 22:24         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-08  3:18           ` Linus Torvalds
2007-06-08  5:30             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-11 22:16             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-08  3:07         ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-06-13 22:06     ` Roland McGrath
2007-06-07  3:20   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-13 15:15   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-06-13 22:36     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2007-06-13 23:01       ` Roland McGrath
2007-06-13 23:18         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-06-14  0:02           ` Roland McGrath
2007-06-13 22:53     ` Roland McGrath
2007-06-14 12:26     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-06-14 12:58       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-06-14 23:35         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-06-15 11:31           ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-06-15 21:48             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-06-15  0:06         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt

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=1181774160.14818.333.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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