linux-kernel - Re: process 'stuck' at exit.

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:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:00:09 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: process 'stuck' at exit.

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 02:48:52PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
 > >
 > > And yes, I remember that we do not do an extra check for the fshared
 > > case, because get_user_pages_fast() should do it for us already. If
 > > not we are fubared not only in the futex code.
 > 
 > Yeah. It turns out we do do the access check indirectly - by looking
 > at the PAGE_USER bit, even if we don't necessarily check the actual
 > limits. So get_user_pages_fast() is fine.
 > 
 > > But there is a subtle detail:
 > 
 > Yup, see my email from ten minutes ago, we found the same thing. And
 > that would seem to explain the endless loop, and also the timing
 > (since Dave mentions he started doing large-pages lately).
 > 
 > So I think the "__get_user_pages_fast(address, 1, !ro, &page)" thing
 > should work.
 > 
 > Dave, can you re-create that trinity run and test that patch? I think
 > we've got this, but it might be nice to leave the hung machine up and
 > running until it's verified.. Although I don't really see what else we
 > could need or get out of it, so..

The only thing I'm still unclear on, is how that pid allegedly wasn't doing
a futex call as part of its run. The only thing I can think of is that
the other pid that _did_ do a futex call did it on a page that was MAP_SHARED
between all the other children, and this 'spin forever' thing only
happens when the last process with a reference on that page exits ?

does that make sense?

	Dave

--
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/