From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Hyunwoo Kim <imv4bel@gmail.com>,
brauner@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
anna-maria@linutronix.de, ebiederm@xmission.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Use list_del_init_careful() in flush_sigqueue()
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 21:58:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fr02gegn.ffs@fw13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ao3kt-eRxw4agOj7@redhat.com>
On Tue, Aug 25 2026 at 20:53, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > Is there something to prevent the timer from firing on another CPU,
>> > racing with this tiny window and queue the signal to the old leader? After
>> > all exchange_tids() is just some RCU pointers changed but there is nothing
>> > to synchronize the readers before the flush_sigqueue(). So pid_task() may
>> > still return the old leader after it?
>>
>> You beat me to it.
>>
>> That's what I initialy thought when I added that exiting check into
>> posixtimer_send_queue(), but then the trivial variant lured me away. :)
>
> I'm afraid I am wrong again... but if change posixtimer_send_sigqueue()
> to check !PF_EXITING, de_thread() still can do flush_sigqueue() after
> exchange_tids() outside of tasklist_lock?
>
> And I'd suggest to check t->exit_state instead of PF_EXITING,
> posixtimer_send_sigqueue() can't miss it if it is called after
> scoped_guard(spinlock_irq, lock).
It neither can miss PF_EXITING which is also set under sighand lock.
But I think we all looked at it way too narrowly focussed on that
specific non-leader exec() scenario. Let's take a step back and look at
the larger picture.
Once begin_new_exec() sets bprm->point_of_no_return = true there is
_ZERO_ reason to queue any posix timer signal anymore. Any failure after
that point will be fatal and shut the whole process down.
So why worrying about the non-leader exec() oddity?
begin_new_exex()
{
...
bprm->point_of_no_return = true;
scoped_guard(spinlock_irq, &me->sighand->siglock)
me->signal->flags |= SIGNAL_EXEC;
de_thread(me)
...
// FIXME: This sequence should be cleaned up with a
// posix_timer_exec() function with a proper stub
// for CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS=n.
#ifdef CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS
spin_lock_irq(&me->sighand->siglock);
posix_cpu_timers_exit(me);
spin_unlock_irq(&me->sighand->siglock);
exit_itimers(me);
flush_itimer_signals();
#endif
...
scoped_guard(spinlock_irq, &me->sighand->siglock)
me->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_EXEC;
// SUCCESS
return 0;
and in posixtimer_send_sigqueue()
if (!likely(lock_task_sighand(t, &flags)))
return;
if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & (SIGNAL_EXEC)))
goto unlock;
and as we need that check anyway we can just make it:
if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & (SIGNAL_EXEC | SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)))
goto unlock;
because there is no point either to queue posix timer signals when
SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set, right?
Something like the untested below. At least I'm sure that I got the
scoped_guard() types right this time.
FWIW, I briefly pondered to hide the first part in de_thread(), but
that just made my tired brain fail to reason about it.
Thanks,
tglx
---
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1148,6 +1148,9 @@ int begin_new_exec(struct linux_binprm *
*/
bprm->point_of_no_return = true;
+ scoped_guard(spinlock_irq, &me->sighand->siglock)
+ me->signal->flags |= SIGNAL_EXEC;
+
/* Make this the only thread in the thread group */
retval = de_thread(me);
if (retval)
@@ -1324,6 +1327,10 @@ int begin_new_exec(struct linux_binprm *
}
bprm->execfd = retval;
}
+
+ scoped_guard(spinlock_irq, &me->sighand->siglock)
+ me->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_EXEC;
+
return 0;
out_unlock:
--- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h
@@ -261,6 +261,8 @@ struct signal_struct {
#define SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED 0x00000001 /* job control stop in effect */
#define SIGNAL_STOP_CONTINUED 0x00000002 /* SIGCONT since WCONTINUED reap */
#define SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT 0x00000004 /* group exit in progress */
+#define SIGNAL_EXEC 0x00000008 /* exec in progress */
+
/*
* Pending notifications to parent.
*/
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -1991,6 +1991,20 @@ void posixtimer_send_sigqueue(struct k_i
return;
/*
+ * If the process is in the middle of exec(), don't queue signals as the
+ * posix timers of this process are not longer accessible and about to
+ * be removed. This prevents a race between queueing the signal on a
+ * exiting former thread group leader in case of an non-leader exec.
+ * Aside of that it makes no sense to queue anything now when it has to
+ * be flushed a split second later anyway.
+ *
+ * As this conditional is required just use the opportunity and check
+ * for a group exit too, where queueing signals is equally pointless.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & (SIGNAL_EXEC | SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)))
+ goto unlock;
+
+ /*
* Update @tmr::sigqueue_seq for posix timer signals with sighand
* locked to prevent a race against dequeue_signal().
*/
@@ -2081,6 +2095,7 @@ void posixtimer_send_sigqueue(struct k_i
result = TRACE_SIGNAL_DELIVERED;
out:
trace_signal_generate(sig, &q->info, t, tmr->it_pid_type != PIDTYPE_PID, result);
+unlock:
unlock_task_sighand(t, &flags);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-25 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-22 5:37 [PATCH] signal: Use list_del_init_careful() in flush_sigqueue() Hyunwoo Kim
2026-08-22 10:27 ` Bradley Morgan
2026-08-23 12:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-24 2:53 ` Hyunwoo Kim
2026-08-24 8:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-24 8:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-08-24 9:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-08-24 11:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-24 11:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-24 13:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2026-08-24 14:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-25 16:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-08-25 18:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-25 19:58 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2026-08-26 9:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-08-24 12:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-08-24 16:31 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=87fr02gegn.ffs@fw13 \
--to=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=imv4bel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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