linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] kernel: unmask SIGSTOP for IO threads

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a179ad33-5656-b644-0d92-e74a6bd26cc8@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:01:00 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     io-uring@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        ebiederm@...ssion.com, metze@...ba.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] kernel: unmask SIGSTOP for IO threads

On 3/26/21 7:48 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Jens, sorry, I got lost :/

Let's bring you back in :-)

> On 03/25, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> With IO threads accepting signals, including SIGSTOP,
> 
> where can I find this change? Looks like I wasn't cc'ed...

It's this very series.

>> unmask the
>> SIGSTOP signal from the default blocked mask.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> ---
>>  kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>> index d3171e8e88e5..d5a40552910f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> @@ -2435,7 +2435,7 @@ struct task_struct *create_io_thread(int (*fn)(void *), void *arg, int node)
>>  	tsk = copy_process(NULL, 0, node, &args);
>>  	if (!IS_ERR(tsk)) {
>>  		sigfillset(&tsk->blocked);
>> -		sigdelsetmask(&tsk->blocked, sigmask(SIGKILL));
>> +		sigdelsetmask(&tsk->blocked, sigmask(SIGKILL)|sigmask(SIGSTOP));
> 
> siginitsetinv(blocked, sigmask(SIGKILL)|sigmask(SIGSTOP)) but this is minor.

Ah thanks.

> To remind, either way this is racy and can't really help.
> 
> And if "IO threads accepting signals" then I don't understand why. Sorry,
> I must have missed something.

I do think the above is a no-op at this point, and we can probably just
kill it. Let me double check, hopefully we can just remove this blocked
part.

-- 
Jens Axboe