Re: [patch V4 part 1 05/36] x86/entry: Flip _TIF_SIGPENDING and _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME handling

Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-05-13T22:48:09Z

----- On May 13, 2020, at 5:10 PM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2020 16:56:41 -0400 (EDT)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>
>> ----- On May 5, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
>>
>> > Make sure task_work runs before any kind of userspace -- very much
>> > including signals -- is invoked.
>>
>> What is missing from this patch description is: _why_ is this deemed
>> useful ?
>>
>> Also, color me confused: is "do_signal()" actually running any user-space,
>> or just setting up the user-space stack for eventual return to signal handler ?
>>
>> Also, it might be OK, but we're changing the order of two things which
>> have effects on each other: restartable sequences abort fixup for preemption
>> and do_signal(), which also have effects on rseq abort.
>>
>> Because those two will cause the abort to trigger, I suspect changing
>> the order might be OK, but we really need to think this through.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> > ---
>> > arch/x86/entry/common.c | 8 ++++----
>> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> > @@ -156,16 +156,16 @@ static void exit_to_usermode_loop(struct
>> > if (cached_flags & _TIF_PATCH_PENDING)
>> > klp_update_patch_state(current);
>> >
>> > - /* deal with pending signal delivery */
>> > - if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>> > - do_signal(regs);
>> > -
>> > if (cached_flags & _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME) {
>> > clear_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
>> > tracehook_notify_resume(regs);
>> > rseq_handle_notify_resume(NULL, regs);
>> > }
>> >
>> > + /* deal with pending signal delivery */
>> > + if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>> > + do_signal(regs);
>
> Looking deeper into this, it appears that do_signal() can freeze or kill the
> task.
>
> That is, it wont go back to user space here, but simply schedule out (being
> traced) or even exit (killed).
>
> Before the resume hooks would never be called in such cases, and now they
> are.

Regarding swapping order of tracehook vs do_signal: Is the task really resumed
if it gets frozen or killed ? What is this change trying to accomplish, why
is it needed in the first place ?

Regarding swapping order of rseq wrt do_signal: why is it needed, why, and has
this been tested ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> -- Steve
>
>
>> > +
>> > if (cached_flags & _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY)
>> > fire_user_return_notifiers();

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.