linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] rlimits: Print more information when limits are exceeded

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1203301614310.2542@ionos>
Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:29:38 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	David Henningsson <david.henningsson@...onical.com>
cc:	Arun Raghavan <arun.raghavan@...labora.co.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] rlimits: Print more information when limits
 are exceeded

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 03:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > 
> > > This dumps some information in logs when a process exceeds its CPU or RT
> > > limits (soft and hard). Makes debugging easier when userspace triggers
> > > these limits.
> > 
> > Why do we need to spam the logs with such information?
> > 
> > SIGXCPU is only ever sent by this code. If there is a signal handler
> > in the application it's easy to debug. If not it's even easier, the
> > thing will simply be killed and you get the reason printed.
> 
> I'm not totally sure, but don't we log SIGSEGVs? If so, the same reasoning
> would apply to SIGSEGV.

I think so. Dunno why this was added in the first place. core dumps or
proper signal handlers are telling you usually more than that single
line in dmesg.
 
> > For the SIGKILL case there only a limited number of reasons why a
> > SIGKILL is sent. So no, I rather commit a patch which removes that
> > ugly printk which is already there instead of adding more of them.
> 
> The reason I proposed some kind of printk for SIGKILL, was to get some
> diagnostic information out of the SIGKILL. E g, if you have two threads both
> running on rtprio rlimits in the same process, it would be very interesting to
> know which one of them was causing the kernel to send SIGKILL.

Usually the one which ignored SIGXCPU for quite a while. There is a
reason why SIGXCPU can be handled by the application.

> Also, it could be useful to know whether the SIGKILL was actually sent by the
> kernel, or by some other process feeling evil (e g "kill -9").

Agreed, but instead of adding that printk to the rlimit code I prefer
a generic infrastructure which can be used by all call sites which
issue SIGKILL. Something like: [__]kill_it(flags, task, "Reason");

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/