linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] freezer: do not send a fake signal to a PF

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: <20130227180844.GA6015@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:08:44 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] freezer: do not send a fake signal to a
	PF_DUMPCORE thread

On 02/26, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> >> Change freeze_task() to check PF_DUMPCORE along with PF_KTHREAD. We
> >> need to recheck PF_DUMPCORE under ->siglock to avoid the race with
> >> zap_threads() which can set this flag right before we take the lock.
> >>
> >
> > Won't this prevent suspend?

Hmm. I guess you mean that pipe_write() can hang in pipe_wait() if the
user-space handler was already freezed... Damn, and I even mentioned
this race when we discussed this 2 weeks ago.

I need to think, but most probably you are right, and we need another
solution...

> You'd rather have reliable suspend than coredumps that aren't
> truncated so you need to set TIF_SIGPENDING to break waits in the
> dump_write path.

Oh, I agree. In this case the necessary changes look simple.

> static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct file *file)
> {
>         struct pipe_inode_info *pipe;
>
>         pipe = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_pipe;
>
>         pipe_lock(pipe);
>         pipe->readers++;
>         pipe->writers--;
>
>         while (pipe->readers > 1) {
>                 unsigned long flags;
>
>                 wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->wait);
>                 kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
>                 pipe_wait(pipe);
>
>                 pipe_unlock(pipe);
>                 try_to_freeze();
>                 pipe_lock(pipe);
>
>                 if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>                         break;
>
>                 /* Clear fake signal from freeze_task(). */
>                 spin_lock_irqsave(&current->sighand->siglock, flags);
>                 recalc_sigpending();
>                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->sighand->siglock, flags);

IIRC, this is what you added into your tree. But note that
recalc_sigpending() is wrong, exactly because (say) SIGCHLD can
be pending if it was sent before we set SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP.

So this code needs something like

	spin_lock_irq(siglock);
	if (!fatal_signal_pending)
		clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
	spin_unlock_irq(siglock);

Or we need to change recalc_sigpending() to check SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP
or PF_DUMPCORE. I'd like to avoid this, but perhaps we have to do this...

(Btw, this is offtopic, but whatever we do 3/3 still looks like a nice
 cleanup to me, although it probably needs more changes)

> What do you think? That would fix most cases. You'll still get a
> truncated core if you were to receive the signal during pipe_write or
> something.

Let me think a bit...

Right now I can only say that personally I do not really like the
idea to fix wait_for_dump_helpers() but not pipe_write(). I mean,
if pipe_write() can fail due to freezing(), then why should we care
about wait_for_dump_helpers() ? Let them all fail, suspend is not
that often.

Or we should try to make everything freezer-friendly. But if
freeze_task() sets TIF_SIGPENDING then we need the ugly "retry"
logic in dump_write()... Not good.

Thanks Mandeep. If you have other ideas please tell me ;)

Oleg.

--
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/