linux-kernel - [PATCH -mm v2] pidns-guarantee-that-the-pidns-init-will-be-the-last-pidns-process-r eaped-v2-fix-fix

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:	Sun, 27 May 2012 20:41:16 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@...labs.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: [PATCH -mm v2]
	pidns-guarantee-that-the-pidns-init-will-be-the-last-pidns-process-r
	eaped-v2-fix-fix

On 05/25, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > 1. Update the comments in zap_pid_ns_processes() and __unhash_process()
>
> In zap_pid_ns_processes I wonder if we should update the big block
> comment with a little more of the theory.  AKA we want as many children
> to self-reap and become EXIT_DEAD children as possible becasue it
> enables more parallelism and is thus faster.

Yes, the comment can be better, I agree.

Ideally it should explain that we need the sys_wait4() loop even if
we ignore SIGCHLD (with your patch), but at the same time we need
the wait-for-empty loop even if SIGCHLD is not ignored.

OK, I tried to make it a bit better, see below. Feel free to rewrite.

> > 2. Move the wake-up-reaper code in __unhash_process() under IS_ENABLED()
>
> I don't really care, it ceartainly looks better than an #ifdef block.
> However come to think of it, it is about time to just plain start
> removing those config options.

Probably, I do not mind if we remove CONFIG_PID_NS. But until we do this,
I think IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PID_NS) makes sense as a documentation.

> > 3. Re-structure the wait-for-empty-children code in zap_pid_ns_processes()
> The restructuring seems basically sane.

Good.

> > +		 * reaped, notify the child_reaper, see zap_pid_ns_processes().
> >  		 */
>
> How about instead:
> >  		/*
> >  		 * If we are the last child process in a pid namespace to be
> > -		 * reaped, notify the child_reaper.
> > +		 * reaped, wake up the child_reaper sleeping in zap_pid_ns_processes().

OK.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
 kernel/exit.c          |   17 +++++++++--------
 kernel/pid_namespace.c |   22 +++++++++++++++-------
 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 231decb..6d66cd2 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -65,8 +65,6 @@ static void __unhash_process(struct task_struct *p, bool group_dead)
 {
 	nr_threads--;
 	if (group_dead) {
-		struct task_struct *parent;
-
 		detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
 		detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_SID);
 
@@ -76,13 +74,16 @@ static void __unhash_process(struct task_struct *p, bool group_dead)
 
 		/*
 		 * If we are the last child process in a pid namespace to be
-		 * reaped, notify the child_reaper.
+		 * reaped, notify the reaper sleeping zap_pid_ns_processes().
 		 */
-		parent = p->real_parent;
-		if ((task_active_pid_ns(p)->child_reaper == parent) &&
-		    list_empty(&parent->children) &&
-		    (parent->flags & PF_EXITING))
-			wake_up_process(parent);
+		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PID_NS)) {
+			struct task_struct *parent = p->real_parent;
+
+			if ((task_active_pid_ns(p)->child_reaper == parent) &&
+			    list_empty(&parent->children) &&
+			    (parent->flags & PF_EXITING))
+				wake_up_process(parent);
+		}
 	}
 	detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PID);
 	list_del_rcu(&p->thread_group);
diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
index 723c948..41ed867 100644
--- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
@@ -179,22 +179,30 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
 	}
 	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
+	/* Firstly reap the EXIT_ZOMBIE children we may have. */
 	do {
 		clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
 		rc = sys_wait4(-1, NULL, __WALL, NULL);
 	} while (rc != -ECHILD);
 
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+	/*
+	 * sys_wait4() above can't reap the TASK_DEAD children.
+	 * Make sure they all go away, see __unhash_process().
+	 */
 	for (;;) {
-		__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
-		if (list_empty(&current->children))
-			break;
+		bool need_wait = false;
+
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+		if (!list_empty(&current->children)) {
+			__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+			need_wait = true;
+		}
 		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+
+		if (!need_wait)
+			break;
 		schedule();
-		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	}
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-	set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 
 	if (pid_ns->reboot)
 		current->signal->group_exit_code = pid_ns->reboot;
-- 
1.5.5.1


--
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/