From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
paul@mad-scientist.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:32:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090601223241.GA26788@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090601203845.B010DFC3C7@magilla.sf.frob.com>
On 06/01, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> IMHO it would certainly be wrong to have behavior differ based on what
> particular method from userland was used to generate a signal.
Agreed.
> Aside from that, I see the following categories for newly-arriving signals.
>
> 1. More core-dump signals. e.g., it was already crashing and you hit ^\
> or maybe just hit ^\ twice with a finger delay.
> 2. Non-fatal signals (i.e. ones with handlers, stop signals).
> 3. Plain sig_fatal() non-core signals (e.g. SIGINT when not handled)
> 4. SIGKILL (an actual one from userland or oomkill, not group-exit)
>
> #1 IMHO should not do anything at all.
> You are asking for a core dump, it's already doing it.
>
> #2 should not do anything at all.
> It's not really possible to suspend during the core dump, so unhandled,
> unblocked stop signals can't do anything either.
>
> #4 IMHO should always stop everything immediately.
> That's what SIGKILL is for. When userland generates a SIGKILL
> explicitly, that says the top priority is to be gone and cease
> consuming any resources ASAP.
Agreed.
> #3 is the open question. I don't feel strongly either way.
>
> Whatever the decision on #3, we have a problem to fix for #1 and #2 at
> least anyway. These unblocked signals will cause TIF_SIGPENDING to be
> set when dumping, either via recalc_sigpending() from dequeue_signal()
> after the core signal is taken (more signals already pending), or via
> signal_wake_up() from complete_signal() for newly-generated signals.
> (PF_EXITING is not yet set to prevent it.) This spuriously prevents
> interruptible waits in the fs code or the pipe code or whatnot.
>
> That looks simple to avoid just by clobbering ->real_blocked when we
> start the core dump.
I don't think ->real_blocked is a good choice, we have to add more checks
to the signal sending path. Note that currenly it is only checked under
sig_fatal() && !SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT.
Perhaps it is easier to change dump_write() to clear TIF_SIGPENDING
unless fatal_signal_pending(),
int coredump_file_write(struct file *file, const void *addr, int nr)
{
while (nr > 0) {
int res = file->f_op->write(file, addr, nr, &file->f_pos);
if (res > 0) {
nr -= res;
continue;
}
if (!signal_pending(current))
break;
if (__fatal_signal_pending(current))
break;
clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
}
return !nr;
}
> The less magical way that is obvious
> would be to add a SIGNAL_GROUP_DUMPING flag that we set at the beginning
> of the dumping, and make recalc_sigpending_tsk/complete_signal obey that.
We do not need to change recalc_sigpending_tsk. For example, if we decide
that only SIGKILL interrupts the coredumping, than I think something like
the patch below should work. But I think we should change dump_write() to
handle the short write anyway?
Of course, this all assumes f_op->write() does not do recalc_sigpending().
Oleg.
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -644,6 +644,8 @@ static int prepare_signal(int sig, struc
/*
* The process is in the middle of dying, nothing to do.
*/
+ if ((signal->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_DUMPING) && sig != SIGKILL)
+ return 0;
} else if (sig_kernel_stop(sig)) {
/*
* This is a stop signal. Remove SIGCONT from all queues.
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1537,6 +1537,8 @@ static inline int zap_threads(struct tas
if (!signal_group_exit(tsk->signal)) {
mm->core_state = core_state;
tsk->signal->group_exit_code = exit_code;
+ tsk->signal->flags |= SIGNAL_GROUP_DUMPING;
+ clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
nr = zap_process(tsk);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
@@ -1760,12 +1762,6 @@ void do_coredump(long signr, int exit_co
old_cred = override_creds(cred);
/*
- * Clear any false indication of pending signals that might
- * be seen by the filesystem code called to write the core file.
- */
- clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
-
- /*
* lock_kernel() because format_corename() is controlled by sysctl, which
* uses lock_kernel()
*/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-01 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-31 5:33 [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate Paul Smith
2009-05-31 10:18 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-31 14:03 ` Olivier Galibert
2009-05-31 16:31 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-31 16:49 ` Olivier Galibert
2009-05-31 17:46 ` Paul Smith
2009-05-31 16:56 ` Paul Smith
2009-06-01 16:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-01 16:41 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-01 17:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-01 17:46 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-01 18:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-01 20:38 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-01 22:32 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2009-06-01 23:02 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-02 0:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-03 7:09 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-04 3:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-04 17:14 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-23 17:31 ` Paul Smith
2009-06-23 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-07-07 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-02 8:21 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-02 15:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-03 7:15 ` Roland McGrath
2009-06-03 14:05 ` Paul Smith
2009-06-01 17:36 ` Paul Smith
2009-06-01 17:49 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-01 18:39 ` Paul Smith
2009-06-01 19:02 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-01 19:09 ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-01 19:06 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-01 19:14 ` Andi Kleen
2009-06-01 19:51 ` Paul Smith
2009-06-01 20:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-06-01 21:34 ` Alan Cox
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=20090601223241.GA26788@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@mad-scientist.net \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@kernel.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