Re: [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check PF_EXITING

Serge E. Hallyn
2022-07-20T15:03:45Z

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:53:05AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> The wait_* code uses signal_pending_state() to test whether a thread has
> been interrupted, which ultimately uses __fatal_signal_pending() to detect
> if there is a fatal signal.
>
> When a pid ns dies, it does:
>
> group_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, task, PIDTYPE_MAX);
>
> for all the tasks in the pid ns. That calls through:
>
> group_send_sig_info() ->
> do_send_sig_info() ->
> send_signal_locked() ->
> __send_signal_locked()
>
> which does:
>
> pending = (type != PIDTYPE_PID) ? &t->signal->shared_pending : &t->pending;
>
> which puts sigkill in the set of shared signals, but not the individual
> pending ones. When complete_signal() is called at the end of
> __send_signal_locked(), if the task already had PF_EXITING (i.e. was
> already waiting on something in its fd closing path like a fuse flush),
> complete_signal() will not wake up the thread, since wants_signal() checks
> PF_EXITING before testing for SIGKILL.
>
> If tasks are stuck in a killable wait (e.g. a fuse flush operation), they
> won't see this shared signal, and will hang forever, since TIF_SIGPENDING
> is set, but the fatal signal can't be detected. So, let's also look for
> PF_EXITING in __fatal_signal_pending().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>

Cool, thanks for nailing this down!

I assume you've been running this on some boxes with no weird effects?

> ---
> include/linux/sched/signal.h | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h
> index cafbe03eed01..c20b7e1d89ef 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h
> @@ -402,7 +402,8 @@ static inline int signal_pending(struct task_struct *p)
>
> static inline int __fatal_signal_pending(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - return unlikely(sigismember(&p->pending.signal, SIGKILL));
> + return unlikely(sigismember(&p->pending.signal, SIGKILL) ||
> + p->flags & PF_EXITING);

Looking around at the callers this does seem safe, but the name does
now seem misleading. Should this be renamed to something like
exiting_or_fatal_signal_pending()?

> }
>
> static inline int fatal_signal_pending(struct task_struct *p)
>
> base-commit: 32346491ddf24599decca06190ebca03ff9de7f8
> --
> 2.34.1
>