[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whoJCocFsQ7+Sqq=dkuzHE+RXxvRdd4ZvyYqnsKBqsKAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 10:44:40 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_thread/x86: don't reset 'cs', 'ss', 'ds' and 'es'
registers for io_threads
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 9:24 PM Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com> wrote:
>
> I have reported an issue that I have with a user process using io_uring
> where when it core dumps, the dump fails to be generated.
> https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/346
I suspect most kernel developers don't have github notifications
enabled. I know I have them disabled because it would be *way* too
noisy not to.
But maybe Jens does for that libiouring part.
> Pavel did comment to my report and he did point out this thread as
> possibly a related issue.
I don't think this is related. The gdb confusion wouldn't affect core
dump generation.
I don't see why a core-dump shouldn't work from an IO thread these
days - the signal struct and synchronization should all be the same as
for a regular user thread.
That said, I do wonder if we should avoid generating core dumps from
the IO worker thread itself. The IO thread itself should never get a
SIGSEGV/SIGBUS anyway, it should have been turned into -EFAULT.
So maybe the
if (current->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)
goto out;
in kernel/signal.c should be moved up above the do_coredump() logic regardless.
Jens, have you played with core-dumping when there are active io_uring
threads? There's a test-program in that github issue report..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists