linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] exec: make de

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: <20181113161858.GE30990@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:18:58 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Seungho Park <seungho1.park@....com>,
        Inkyu Hwang <inkyu.hwang@....com>,
        Donghwan Jung <donghwan.jung@....com>,
        Jongsung Kim <neidhard.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: make de_thread() freezable

On 11/13, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 12-11-18 12:54:45, Chanho Min wrote:
> > Suspend fails due to the exec family of functions blocking the freezer.
> > The casue is that de_thread() sleeps in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE waiting for
> > all sub-threads to die, and we have the deadlock if one of them is frozen.
> > This also can occur with the schedule() waiting for the group thread leader
> > to exit if it is frozen.
> >
> > In our machine, it causes freeze timeout as bellows.
> >
> > Freezing of tasks failed after 20.010 seconds (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
> > setcpushares-ls D ffffffc00008ed70     0  5817   1483 0x0040000d
> >  Call trace:
> > [<ffffffc00008ed70>] __switch_to+0x88/0xa0
> > [<ffffffc000d1c30c>] __schedule+0x1bc/0x720
> > [<ffffffc000d1ca90>] schedule+0x40/0xa8
> > [<ffffffc0001cd784>] flush_old_exec+0xdc/0x640
> > [<ffffffc000220360>] load_elf_binary+0x2a8/0x1090
> > [<ffffffc0001ccff4>] search_binary_handler+0x9c/0x240
> > [<ffffffc00021c584>] load_script+0x20c/0x228
> > [<ffffffc0001ccff4>] search_binary_handler+0x9c/0x240
> > [<ffffffc0001ce8e0>] do_execveat_common.isra.14+0x4f8/0x6e8
> > [<ffffffc0001cedd0>] compat_SyS_execve+0x38/0x48
> > [<ffffffc00008de30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
> >
> > To fix this, make de_thread() freezable. It looks safe and works fine.
>
> It's been some time since I have looked into this code so bear with me.
> One thing is not really clear to me. Why does it help to exclude this
> particular task from the freezer

we don't exclude it,

> when it is not sleeping in the freezer.

Yes, it is not sleeping in __refrigerator(), but it does

	schedule();
	freezer_count();

so it will enter __refrigerator() right after wakeup. If it won't be woken
up we do not care, we can consider it "frozen".

> I can see how other threads need to be zapped and TASK_WAKEKILL doesn't
> do that but shouldn't we fix that instead?

Not sure I understand, but unlikely we can (or want) to make __refrigerator()
killable.

Otherwise, how can we fix that?

Oleg.