[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210318180450.GA9977@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 19:04:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: qianli zhao <zhaoqianligood@...il.com>
Cc: christian@...uner.io, axboe@...nel.dk,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Qianli Zhao <zhaoqianli@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] exit: trigger panic when global init has exited
On 03/18, qianli zhao wrote:
>
> Hi,Oleg
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> >> When init sub-threads running on different CPUs exit at the same time,
> >> zap_pid_ns_processe()->BUG() may be happened.
>
> > and why do you think your patch can't prevent this?
>
> > Sorry, I must have missed something. But it seems to me that you are trying
> > to fix the wrong problem. Yes, zap_pid_ns_processes() must not be called in
> > the root namespace, and this has nothing to do with CONFIG_PID_NS.
>
> Yes, i try to fix this exception by test SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT and call
> panic before setting PF_EXITING to prevent zap_pid_ns_processes()
> being called when init do_exit().
Ah, I didn't notice your patch does atomic_dec_and_test(signal->live)
before exit_signals() which sets PF_EXITING. Thanks for correcting me.
So yes, I was wrong, your patch can prevent this. Although I'd like to
recheck if every do-something-if-group-dead action is correct in the
case we have a non-PF_EXITING thread...
But then I don't understand the SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT check added by your
patch. Do we really need it if we want to avoid zap_pid_ns_processes()
when the global init exits?
> In addition, the patch also protects the init process state to
> successfully get usable init coredump.
Could you spell please?
Does this connect to SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT check? Do you mean that you want
to panic earlier, before other init's sub-threads exit?
Thanks,
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists