[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190718101735.pbu6nji6mfwq4mxa@brauner.io>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:17:40 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] pidfd: fix a race in setting exit_state for pidfd
polling
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,
Btw, if that stress test is in any way upstreamable I'd like to put this
into for-next as well. :)
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists