linux-kernel - Re: Stupid futex question

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:42:15 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Stupid futex question - 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210

(Adding some cc: to the list)

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:37:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra said:
> On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:04 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > Kernel: x86_64 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210
> > 
> > I'm debugging a problem where pulseaudio is getting killed with a SIGKILL
> > out of the blue.  It appears to be a problem where pulseaudio sets
> > RLIMIT_RTTIME and the bound gets exceeded.  Analysis with 'top' shows
> > a short spike of 96% system time, and the tail end of strace shows this:
> > 
> > [pid 25065] 01:50:20.371484 ioctl(28, USBDEVFS_CONTROL, 0x7fd3d76f630c) = 0 <0.000015>
> > [pid 25065] 01:50:20.371548 ioctl(28, 0x40045532, 0x7fd3d76f636c) = 0 <0.000016>
> > [pid 25065] 01:50:20.371611 open("/dev/snd/pcmC0D0p", O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_CLOEXEC <unfinished ...>
> > [pid 25064] 01:50:20.371678 <... write resumed> ) = 8 <0.002104>
> > [pid 25064] 01:50:20.371718 futex(0xc2ec00, FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE, 0, NULL <unfinished ...>
> > [pid 25066] 01:50:21.408392 +++ killed by SIGKILL +++
> > PANIC: handle_group_exit: 25066 leader 25064
> > [pid 25065] 01:50:21.408442 +++ killed by SIGKILL +++
> > PANIC: handle_group_exit: 25065 leader 25064
> > 01:50:21.420354 +++ killed by SIGKILL +++
> > 
> > thread 25064 apparently gets gunned down due to RTTIME because it spent a whole
> > second in a futex() call - is it reasonable for futex() to not return for that
> > long?
> > 
> > In other words - kernel bug because futex() should return, or pulseaudio bug
> > for not understanding futex() can snooze a while?
> > 
> > If a kernel bug, anybody got a better idea than nuking the RLIMIT_RTTIME call,
> > waiting for it to repeat (takes between 1 minute and 1 hour or so), and
> > whomping it a few times with sysrq-T?
> 
> is that second spend in processing sysrq-t?

No, currently that second is spent in a futex() syscall - I'm wondering:

1) should it get killed for RLIMIT_RTTIME because it's been in a futex()
for multiple seconds? It seems suspicious - docs say a blocking syscall
resets RTTIME - so if futex() blocks it shouldn't kill, and if it's in the
kernel for a second without blocking it's a bug too.

2) Is sysrq-T my best bet here, or should I be trying something else first?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped