linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned

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]

Message-ID: <20071209164311.GA416@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:43:11 +0300
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>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] will_become_orphaned_pgrp: we have threads

On 12/09, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Equally messed up is a our status in /proc at that point.  Which
> says our sleeping process is a zombie.

Yes, this is annoying.

> I'm thinking we need to do at least some of the thread group leadership
> transfer in do_exit, instead of de_thread.  Then p->group_leader->exit_state
> would be sufficient to see if the entire thread group was alive,
> as the group_leader would be whoever was left alive.  The original
> group_leader might still need to be kept around for it's pid...
>
> I think that would solve most of the problems you have with a dead
> thread group leader and sending SIG_STOP as well.

Yes I was thinking about that too, but I am not brave enough to even
try to to think to the end ;)

As a minimal change, I tried to add "task_struct *leader_proxy" to
signal_struct, which points to the next live thread, and changed by
exit_notify(). eligible_child() checks it instead of ->exit_signal.
But this is so messy...

And in fact, if we are talking about group stop, it is a group operation,
why do_wait() uses per-thread ->exit_code but not ->group_exit_code ?

But yes, [PATCH 3/3] adds a visible difference, and I don't know if
this difference is good or bad.

	$ sleep 1000

	[1]+  Stopped                 sleep 1000
	$ strace -p `pidof sleep`
	Process 432 attached - interrupt to quit

Now strace "hangs" in do_wait() because ->exit_code was eaten by the
shell. We need SIGCONT.

With the "[PATCH 3/3]" strace proceeds happily.

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/