From: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: rientjes@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] sysrq: Use SEND_SIG_FORCED instead of force_sig()
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:50:17 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120214225017.GA12360@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120210201008.GA21009@redhat.com>
Change send_sig_all() to use do_send_sig_info(SEND_SIG_FORCED)
instead of force_sig(SIGKILL). With the recent changes we do not
need force_ to kill the CLONE_NEWPID tasks.
And this is more correct. force_sig() can race with the exiting
thread, while do_send_sig_info(group => true) kill the whole
process.
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>
---
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:10:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> > @@ -324,9 +324,12 @@ static void send_sig_all(int sig)
> >
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > for_each_process(p) {
> > - if (p->mm && !is_global_init(p))
> > - /* Not swapper, init nor kernel thread */
> > - force_sig(sig, p);
> > + if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
> > + continue;
> > + if (is_global_init(p))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + force_sig(sig, p);
> > }
> > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>
> Obviously I agree with this change.
>
> But where does this read_lock(tasklist) come from?
It came from this patch: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/7/24
> We discussed this with Anton. Yes, tasklist ensures that
> force_sig() can't crash the kernel. But it is still wrong
> and should not be used.
>
> I think send_sig_all() should use SEND_SIG_FORCED (this
> depends on the patches I sent to Andrew), in this case
> tasklist is not needed.
Well, I think the lock is still a good thing: we don't want
any new processes to be created while we kill others.
I might be wrong, but copy_process() issues recalc_sigpending()
under tasklist lock especially the for this scenario.
So, in this and in OOM cases we have to be precise (unlike LMK).
Sysrq is a rare thing, so there is actually should be no problem
with holding the lock.
So, how about this patch?
Greg, can we take it via -mm tree, as it depends on a few
sched patches?
drivers/tty/sysrq.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
index 8db9125..5ab8039 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
@@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static void send_sig_all(int sig)
if (is_global_init(p))
continue;
- force_sig(sig, p);
+ do_send_sig_info(sig, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
}
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
}
--
1.7.7.6
next parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-14 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <13288070803232@kroah.org>
[not found] ` <20120210201008.GA21009@redhat.com>
2012-02-14 22:50 ` Anton Vorontsov [this message]
2012-02-14 23:03 ` [PATCH] sysrq: Use SEND_SIG_FORCED instead of force_sig() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-02-15 13:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-24 11:00 Anton Vorontsov
2012-03-26 22:43 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-27 13:03 ` Anton Vorontsov
2012-03-28 20:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-28 21:08 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-28 21:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20120214225017.GA12360@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru \
--to=anton.vorontsov@linaro.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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