Re: [PATCH 3/3] exec: Allow do_coredump to wait for user space pipe readers to complete (v6)

Oleg Nesterov
2009-07-03T10:13:24Z

On 07/02, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 05:37:36PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > And I still can't understand your answer.
> >
> > My question is: why don't we do wait_for_dump_helpers() if core_pipe_limit == 0.
> >
> I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself clearly. Perhaps it would be best to say
> that I made this choice by design. I wanted core_pipe_limit == 0 to be a
> special value in which we did 2 things:
> 1) Allowed an unlimited number of coredumps-to-pipes in parallel.
> 2) Disabled waiting on usermode helper processes to complete
>
> I understand what you're saying in that we block in ->core_wait() once the pipe
> fills up, but, as you see, we want to be able to wait after we've finished
> writing the core (for the reasons we've discussed). Conversely, I see advantage
> in not waiting on usermode helpers if they have no need for additional crashing
> process info. In short, I see an advantage to being able to disable this
> waiting feature from user space. I.e allowing the crashing process to exit
> immediately while the user helper continues to run could be adventageous.
>
> Put it this way: If you want to be able to have an unlimited number of user mode
> helpers run in parallel and have the kernel wait on each of them, set
> core_pipe_limit to MAXINT, and you effectively have that situation. Since
> core_pipe_limit == 0 effectively has to mean the same thing as core_pipe_limit
> == MAXINT (in that you have an effectively unbounded number of processes
> operating concurrently), why not add in this feature which allows you to disable
> the wait after ->core_dump() entirely.
>
>
>
> > Because I don't really understand how core_pipe_limit connected to
> > wait_for_dump_helpers(). Because, once again, we have to wait for core_pattern
> > app in any case.
> >
> > > > As for implementation, my only complaint is that wait_for_dump_helpers() lacks
> > > > signal_pending() check, this wasn't answered.
> > > >
> > > I'll have to defer to others on this. It seems to me that, given that we are
> > > waiting here in the context of process that has already received a fatal signal,
> > > theres no opportunity to handle subsequent signals,
> >
> > Yes, we can't handle subsequent signals, but this is not needed.
> >
> Ok.
>
> > > I agree we busy wait if a signal is
> > > pending,
> >
> > Yes. And this is not nice.
> >
> > > but if we drop out of the loop if a signal is pending then we cancel
> > > the wait early, leading to the early removal of the /proc file for the crashing
> > > process.
> >
> > Yes. But if signal_pending() == T we already have other problems. In
> > particular pipe_write() can fail, and in this case the coredump won't
> > complete anyway.
> >
> Who's going to call pipe_write? The userspace process isn't going to write to
> stdin,

dump_write() calls pipe_write().

> and by the time we're in this loop, we're done writing to the pipe
> anyway.

Sure. But dump_write() can fail if we recieve the signal. In that case
it doesn't really matter wait_for_dump_helpers() aborts.

> > Hopefully this will be changed soon: the coredumping task should ignore
> > ignore all signals except SIGKILL which should terminate the coredump,
> > and in this case of course wait_for_dump_helpers() should abort.
> >
> It sounds like what we should do then is, rather than gate the loop on
> signal_pending, we should instead gate it on fatal_signal_pending, which should
> only return true if SIGKILL is asserted on the crashing task. Does that sound
> reasonable to you?

No. I reply to v7.

Oleg.