[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180726132050.GA32718@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:20:50 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
majiang <ma.jiang@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/20] signal: Add calculate_sigpending()
On 07/23, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1988,6 +1988,7 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
> &p->signal->thread_head);
> }
> attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PID);
> + calculate_sigpending(p);
In theory this looks racy if !CLONE_SIGHAND, please see below
> +void calculate_sigpending(struct task_struct *new)
> +{
> + /* Have any signals or users of TIF_SIGPENDING been delayed
> + * until after fork?
> + */
> + bool pending = (new->jobctl & JOBCTL_PENDING_MASK) ||
> + PENDING(&new->pending, &new->blocked) ||
> + PENDING(&new->signal->shared_pending, &new->blocked) ||
> + freezing(new) || klp_patch_pending(new);
note that we do not hold new->sighand->siglock, but this "new" task is already
visible to find_task_by_vpid/etc; so a new signal can come right after this check,
> + update_tsk_thread_flag(new, TIF_SIGPENDING, pending);
and then update_tsk_thread_flag() can wrongly clear TIF_SIGPENDING.
Easy to fix, but perhaps we can simply add recalc_sigpending() into
schedule_tail() ? It already does more than just finish_task_switch/etc.
This way we do not need the new helper (which btw can only be used by
copy_process).
Note also that either way you can remove set_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)
from ptrace_init_task().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists