[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190717205112.GC72146@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 16:51:12 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
jannh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] pidfd: fix a race in setting exit_state for pidfd
polling
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:55:57PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:21:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> >
> > There is a race between reading task->exit_state in pidfd_poll and writing
> > it after do_notify_parent calls do_notify_pidfd. Expected sequence of
> > events is:
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > exit_notify
> > do_notify_parent
> > do_notify_pidfd
> > tsk->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD
> > pidfd_poll
> > if (tsk->exit_state)
> >
> > However nothing prevents the following sequence:
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > exit_notify
> > do_notify_parent
> > do_notify_pidfd
> > pidfd_poll
> > if (tsk->exit_state)
> > tsk->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD
> >
> > This causes a polling task to wait forever, since poll blocks because
> > exit_state is 0 and the waiting task is not notified again. A stress
> > test continuously doing pidfd poll and process exits uncovered this bug,
> > and the below patch fixes it.
> >
> > To fix this, we set tsk->exit_state before calling do_notify_pidfd.
> >
> > Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>
> That means in such a situation other users will see EXIT_ZOMBIE where
> they didn't see that before until after the parent failed to get
> notified.
>
> That's a rather subtle internal change. I was worried about
> __ptrace_detach() since it explicitly checks for EXIT_ZOMBIE but it
> seems to me that this is fine since we hold write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> at the point when we do set p->exit_signal.
Right.
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Thanks.
> Once Oleg confirms that I'm right not to worty I'll pick this up.
Ok.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists