[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190211141340.GA21430@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:13:40 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
jolsa@...hat.com, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] signal: Always notice exiting tasks
sorry again for delay...
On 02/07, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2393,6 +2393,11 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> goto relock;
> }
>
> + /* Has this task already been marked for death? */
> + ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
> + if (signal_group_exit(signal))
> + goto fatal;
> +
> for (;;) {
> struct k_sigaction *ka;
>
> @@ -2488,6 +2493,7 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> continue;
> }
>
> + fatal:
> spin_unlock_irq(&sighand->siglock);
Eric, but this is wrong. At least this is the serious user-visible change.
Afaics, with this patch the tracee will never stop in PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT in case
of group_exit/exec, because schedule() in TASK_TRACED state won't block due to
__fatal_signal_pending().
Yes, yes, as I said many times the semantics of PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT was never really
defined, it depends on /dev/random, but still I don't think we should break it even
more.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists