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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKOZueu-ZRzzER3Cb6bNBtbmmhBJRzqjGvwvt8KTyVrmP9wQ7g@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:30:30 -0700 From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com, Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] signal: extend pidfd_send_signal() to allow expedited process killing On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 7:14 AM Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:53 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu 11-04-19 08:33:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 06:43:53PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > Add new SS_EXPEDITE flag to be used when sending SIGKILL via > > > > pidfd_send_signal() syscall to allow expedited memory reclaim of the > > > > victim process. The usage of this flag is currently limited to SIGKILL > > > > signal and only to privileged users. > > > > > > What is the downside of doing expedited memory reclaim? ie why not do it > > > every time a process is going to die? > > > > Well, you are tearing down an address space which might be still in use > > because the task not fully dead yeat. So there are two downsides AFAICS. > > Core dumping which will not see the reaped memory so the resulting > > Test for SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP before doing any of this then. If you > try to start a core dump after reaping begins, too bad: you could have > raced with process death anyway. > > > coredump might be incomplete. And unexpected #PF/gup on the reaped > > memory will result in SIGBUS. > > It's a dying process. Why even bother returning from the fault > handler? Just treat that situation as a thread exit. There's no need > to make this observable to userspace at all. Just for clarity, checking the code, I think we already do this. zap_other_threads sets SIGKILL pending on every thread in the group, and we'll handle SIGKILL in the process of taking any page fault or doing any system call, so I don't think it's actually possible for a thread in a dying process to observe the SIGBUS that reaping in theory can generate.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists