linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] show message when exceeded rlimit of pending signals

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: <4AEC19F3.2040804@miraclelinux.com>
Date:	Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:05:23 +0900
From:	Naohiro Ooiwa <nooiwa@...aclelinux.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>,
	roland@...hat.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] show message when exceeded rlimit of pending signals

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:50:14 +0900 Naohiro Ooiwa <nooiwa@...aclelinux.com> wrote:
> 
>> Naohiro Ooiwa wrote:
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:36:31 +0900
>>>> Naohiro Ooiwa <nooiwa@...aclelinux.com> wrote:
> 
> Please always include the full changelog and signoff with each
> iteration of a patch.  That changelog might of course need updating as
> the patch changes.
> 

I'm sorry...
I will be very careful from the next time.

>>
>> +static void show_reach_rlimit_sigpending(void)
>> +{
>> +	DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(printk_rl_state, 5 * HZ, 10);
> 
> This needs to have `static' storage.  This bug should have been
> apparent in your testing?
> 

Again, I'm sorry, I failed to make sure.
But right now, I have test environment.
I tested my patch, result is good.

Thanks you.
Naohiro Ooiwa


When the system has too many timers or too many aggregate
queued signals, the EAGAIN error is returned to application
from kernel, including timer_create().
It means that exceeded limit of pending signals at all.
But we can't imagine it.

This patch show the message when reached limit of pending signals.
If you see this message and your system behaved unexpectedly,
you can run following command.
   # ulimit -i unlimited

With help from Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>.


Signed-off-by: Naohiro Ooiwa <nooiwa@...aclelinux.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
 Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt |   11 +++++++++--
 kernel/signal.c                     |   21 ++++++++++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 9107b38..3bbd92f 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -2032,8 +2032,15 @@ and is between 256 and 4096 characters. It is defined in
the file

 	print-fatal-signals=
 			[KNL] debug: print fatal signals
-			print-fatal-signals=1: print segfault info to
-			the kernel console.
+
+			If enabled, warn about various signal handling
+			related application anomalies: too many signals,
+			too many POSIX.1 timers, fatal signals causing a
+			coredump - etc.
+
+			If you hit the warning due to signal overflow,
+			you might want to try "ulimit -i unlimited".
+
 			default: off.

 	printk.time=	Show timing data prefixed to each printk message line
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 6705320..56e9c00 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -41,6 +41,8 @@

 static struct kmem_cache *sigqueue_cachep;

+int print_fatal_signals __read_mostly;
+
 static void __user *sig_handler(struct task_struct *t, int sig)
 {
 	return t->sighand->action[sig - 1].sa.sa_handler;
@@ -188,6 +190,17 @@ int next_signal(struct sigpending *pending, sigset_t *mask)
 	return sig;
 }

+static void show_reach_rlimit_sigpending(void)
+{
+	static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(printk_rl_state, 5 * HZ, 10);
+
+	if (!__ratelimit(&printk_rl_state))
+		return;
+
+	printk(KERN_INFO "%s/%d: reached RLIMIT_SIGPENDING.\n",
+				current->comm, current->pid);
+}
+
 /*
  * allocate a new signal queue record
  * - this may be called without locks if and only if t == current, otherwise an
@@ -209,8 +222,12 @@ static struct sigqueue *__sigqueue_alloc(struct task_struct
*t, gfp_t flags,
 	atomic_inc(&user->sigpending);
 	if (override_rlimit ||
 	    atomic_read(&user->sigpending) <=
-			t->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_SIGPENDING].rlim_cur)
+			t->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_SIGPENDING].rlim_cur) {
 		q = kmem_cache_alloc(sigqueue_cachep, flags);
+	} else {
+		if (print_fatal_signals)
+			show_reach_rlimit_sigpending();
+	}
 	if (unlikely(q == NULL)) {
 		atomic_dec(&user->sigpending);
 		free_uid(user);
@@ -925,8 +942,6 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct
task_struct *t,
 	return __send_signal(sig, info, t, group, from_ancestor_ns);
 }

-int print_fatal_signals;
-
 static void print_fatal_signal(struct pt_regs *regs, int signr)
 {
 	printk("%s/%d: potentially unexpected fatal signal %d.\n",
-- 1.5.4.1
--
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/