linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

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:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 16:13:55 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
        lpechacek@...e.cz, pavel@....cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking
 tasks

On Tue 2017-10-31 12:48:52, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Live patching consistency model is of LEAVE_PATCHED_SET and
> SWITCH_THREAD. This means that all tasks in the system have to be marked
> one by one as safe to call a new patched function. Safe means when a
> task is not (sleeping) in a set of patched functions. That is, no
> patched function is on the task's stack. Another clearly safe place is
> the boundary between kernel and userspace. The patching waits for all
> tasks to get outside of the patched set or to cross the boundary. The
> transition is completed afterwards.
> 
> The problem is that a task can block the transition for quite a long
> time, if not forever. It could sleep in a set of patched functions, for
> example.  Luckily we can force the task to leave the set by sending it a
> fake signal, that is a signal with no data in signal pending structures
> (no handler, no sign of proper signal delivered). Suspend/freezer use
> this to freeze the tasks as well. The task gets TIF_SIGPENDING set and
> is woken up (if it has been sleeping in the kernel before) or kicked by
> rescheduling IPI (if it was running on other CPU). This causes the task
> to go to kernel/userspace boundary where the signal would be handled and
> the task would be marked as safe in terms of live patching.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> index b004a1fb6032..6700d3b22615 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> @@ -577,3 +577,43 @@ void klp_copy_process(struct task_struct *child)
>  
>  	/* TIF_PATCH_PENDING gets copied in setup_thread_stack() */
>  }
> +
> +/*
> + * Sends a fake signal to all non-kthread tasks with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set.
> + * Kthreads with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set are woken up. Only admin can request this
> + * action currently.
> + */
> +void klp_force_signals(void)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *g, *task;
> +
> +	pr_notice("signaling remaining tasks\n");
> +
> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +	for_each_process_thread(g, task) {
> +		if (!klp_patch_pending(task))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * There is a small race here. We could see TIF_PATCH_PENDING
> +		 * set and decide to wake up a kthread or send a fake signal.
> +		 * Meanwhile the task could migrate itself and the action
> +		 * would be meaningless. It is not serious though.
> +		 */
> +		if (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Wake up a kthread which still has not been migrated.
> +			 */
> +			wake_up_process(task);

I have just noticed that freezer used wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
IMHO, we should do so as well.

wake_up_process() wakes also tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state.
These might not be ready for an unexpected wakeup. For example,
see concat_dev_erase() in drivers/mtd/mtdcontact.c.

With this change, feel free to use

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>

Best Regards,
Petr