linux-kernel - Re: [v3.13][v3.14][Regression] kthread: make kthread

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: <20140317201919.GA28997@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:19:19 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp, rientjes@...gle.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, tj@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: [v3.13][v3.14][Regression] kthread: make kthread_create()
	killable

On 03/17, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:46:26 -0400 Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tetsuo,
> >
> > A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu[0].  We performed a kernel
> > bisect, and found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
> >
> >
> > commit 786235eeba0e1e85e5cbbb9f97d1087ad03dfa21
> > Author: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> > Date:   Tue Nov 12 15:06:45 2013 -0800
> >
> >     kthread: make kthread_create() killable
> >
> > The regression was introduced as of v3.13-rc1.
> >
> > The bug indicates an issue with the SAS controller during
> > initialization, which prevents the system from booting.  Additional
> > details are available in the bug report or on request.
> >
> > I was hoping to get your feedback, since you are the patch author.  Do
> > you think gathering any additional data will help diagnose this issue,
> > or would it be best to submit a revert request?
> >
> > [0] http://pad.lv/1276705
>
> What process is running here?  Presumably modprobe.
>
> A possible explanation is that modprobe has genuinely received a
> SIGKILL.  Can you identify anything in this setup which might send a
> SIGKILL to the modprobe process?

See also other discussion in this thread, I thinks the code in drivers/
is buggy anyway.

> kthread_create_on_node() thinks that SIGKILL came from the oom-killer
> and it cheerfully returns -ENOMEM, which is incorrect if that signal
> came from userspace.

Yes, I think it should return -EINTR.

> And I don't _think_ we prevent
> userspace-originated signals from unblocking
> wait_for_completion_killable()?

And we should not.

> Root cause time: it's wrong for the oom-killer to use SIGKILL.

Not sure... what else?

> In fact
> it's basically always wrong to send signals from in-kernel.

Well, SIGSEGV, SIGIO...

> Signals
> are a userspace IPC mechanism and using them in-kernel a) makes it hard
> (or impossible) to distinguish them from userspace-originated signals
> and b) permits userspace to produce surprising results in the kernel,
> which I suspect is what we're seeing here.

Well, I think in this case it doesn't matter who/why sends a signal.
The task is killed, it should react and exit asap. And kthread_create()
can fail in any case, at least the kernel should not crash.

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/