linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kthread: Enhance kthread_stop to abort interruptible sleeps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:34:06 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Enhance kthread_stop to abort interruptible sleeps

On 04/14, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
> 
> > On 04/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> +static inline int __kthread_should_stop(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >> +{
> >> +	return test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_KTHREAD_STOP);
> >> +}
> >
> > Am I blind? Where does copy_process/dup_task_struct clears unwanted
> > flags in thread_info->flags ?
> 
> Good question.  It is only a real problem if someone forks a kernel
> thread after we ask it to die but, it does appear to be an issue.
> With this usage and the same usage by the process freezer.
> 
> We do have these lines in copy_process...
> 
> 	clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SIGPENDING);
> 	init_sigpending(&p->pending);
> 
> I don't know what we want to do about TIF_KTHREAD_STOP and TIF_FREEZE.

Perhaps we need _TIF_CLEAR_ON_FORK_MASK. Probably doesn't matter right
now, but still it is not imho safe in general.

> Right now we will go allow our merry way until we hit:
> 
> 	recalc_sigpending();
> 	if (signal_pending(current)) {
> 		spin_unlock(&current->sighand->siglock);
> 		write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> 		retval = -ERESTARTNOINTR;
> 		goto bad_fork_cleanup_namespaces;
> 	}
> 
> And copy_process will fail.  Since that is an expected failure point
> that actually seems like reasonable behavior in this case if you
> are being frozen or are being told to die you can't fork.
> 
> It does ensure that these additional kernel flags won't make it
> onto new instances of struct task_struct.  Which is the important
> thing from a correctness standpoint.

Note that we set TIF_FREEZE and TIF_KTHREAD_STOP outside of ->siglock,
so both flags can leak onto the child. Again, not a problem right now.
TIF_KTHREAD_STOP doesn't matter unless process was created vi kthread_create(),
but in that case it can't inherit TIF_KTHREAD_STOP.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/