[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bm7ukjwx.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:09:34 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Enke Chen <enkechen@...co.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"Victor Kamensky \(kamensky\)" <kamensky@...co.com>,
xe-linux-external@...co.com, Stefan Strogin <sstrogin@...co.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal: Signal-based pre-coredump notification
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> On 10/15, Enke Chen wrote:
>>
>> > I don't understand why we need valid_predump_signal() at all.
>>
>> Most of the signals have well-defined semantics, and would not be appropriate
>> for this purpose.
>
> you are going to change the rules anyway.
I will just add that CLD_XXX is only valid with SIGCHLD as they are
signal specific si_codes. In conjunction with another signal like
SIGUSR it will have another meaning. I would really appreciate it
if new code does not further complicate siginfo_layout.
>> That is why it is limited to only SIGCHLD, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2.
>
> Which do not queue. So the parent won't get the 2nd signal if 2 children
> crash at the same time.
We do best effort queueing but we don't guarantee anything. So yes
this makes signals a very louzy interface for sending this kind of
information.
>> >> if (sig_kernel_coredump(signr)) {
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * Notify the parent prior to the coredump if the
>> >> + * parent is interested in such a notificaiton.
>> >> + */
>> >> + int p_sig = current->real_parent->predump_signal;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (valid_predump_signal(p_sig)) {
>> >> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>> >> + do_notify_parent_predump(current);
>> >> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>> >> + cond_resched();
>> >
>> > perhaps this should be called by do_coredump() after coredump_wait() kills
>> > all the sub-threads?
>>
>> proc_coredump_connector(current) is located here, they should stay together.
>
> Why?
>
> Once again, other threads are still alive. So if the parent restarts the service
> after it recieves -predump_signal, the new process can "race" with the old thread.
Yes. It isn't until do_coredump calls coredump_wait that all of the
threads are killed.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists