[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120613145248.f5caab7e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:52:48 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@...labs.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pidns: guarantee that the pidns init will be the
last pidns process reaped
On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:15:00 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> Today we have a two-fold bug. Sometimes release_task on pid == 1 in a
> pid namespace can run before other processes in a pid namespace have had
> release task called. With the result that pid_ns_release_proc can be
> called before the last proc_flus_task() is done using
> upid->ns->proc_mnt, resulting in the use of a stale pointer. This same
> set of circumstances can lead to waitpid(...) returning for a processes
> started with clone(CLONE_NEWPID) before the every process in the pid
> namespace has actually exited.
>
> To fix this modify zap_pid_ns_processess wait until all other processes
> in the pid namespace have exited, even EXIT_DEAD zombies.
>
> The delay_group_leader and related tests ensure that the thread gruop
> leader will be the last thread of a process group to be reaped, or to
> become EXIT_DEAD and self reap. With the change to zap_pid_ns_processes
> we get the guarantee that pid == 1 in a pid namespace will be the last
> task that release_task is called on.
>
> With pid == 1 being the last task to pass through release_task
> pid_ns_release_proc can no longer be called too early nor can wait
> return before all of the EXIT_DEAD tasks in a pid namespace have exited.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ static void exit_mm(struct task_struct * tsk);
> static void __unhash_process(struct task_struct *p, bool group_dead)
> {
> nr_threads--;
> - detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PID);
> if (group_dead) {
> detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
> detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_SID);
> @@ -72,7 +71,20 @@ static void __unhash_process(struct task_struct *p, bool group_dead)
> list_del_rcu(&p->tasks);
> list_del_init(&p->sibling);
> __this_cpu_dec(process_counts);
> + /*
> + * If we are the last child process in a pid namespace to be
> + * reaped, notify the reaper sleeping zap_pid_ns_processes().
> + */
> + 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 57bc1fd..41ed867 100644
> --- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> @@ -179,11 +179,31 @@ 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);
>
> + /*
> + * sys_wait4() above can't reap the TASK_DEAD children.
> + * Make sure they all go away, see __unhash_process().
> + */
> + for (;;) {
> + bool need_wait = false;
> +
> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + if (!list_empty(¤t->children)) {
> + __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + need_wait = true;
> + }
> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> +
> + if (!need_wait)
> + break;
> + schedule();
This sleep is terminated by the above wake_up_process(), yes?
But that wake_up_process() only happens if CONFIG_PID_NS. It's
unobvious (to me) that we can't get stuck in D state if
CONFIG_PID_NS=n. If bug, please fix. If not bug, please make obvious
to me ;)
<looks at the locking a bit>
<gets distracted>
That tty_kref_put() in __exit_signal() is running with tasklist_lock
held, yes? It does a ton of work and calls out to random drivers and
none of this needs tasklist_lock. Seems risky.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists