[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210614141032.GA13677@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:10:33 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Pavel Begunkov>" <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Limit what can interrupt coredumps
Eric, et al, sorry for delay, I didn't read emails several days.
On 06/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> v2: Don't remove the now unnecessary code in prepare_signal.
No, that code is still needed. Otherwise any fatal signal will be
turned into SIGKILL.
> --- a/fs/coredump.c
> +++ b/fs/coredump.c
> @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ static bool dump_interrupted(void)
> * but then we need to teach dump_write() to restart and clear
> * TIF_SIGPENDING.
> */
> - return signal_pending(current);
> + return fatal_signal_pending(current) || freezing(current);
> }
Well yes, this is what the comment says.
But note that there is another reason why dump_interrupted() returns true
if signal_pending(), it assumes thagt __dump_emit()->__kernel_write() may
fail anyway if signal_pending() is true. Say, pipe_write(), or iirc nfs,
perhaps something else...
That is why zap_threads() clears TIF_SIGPENDING. Perhaps it should clear
TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL as well and we should change io-uring to not abuse the
dumping threads?
Or perhaps we should change __dump_emit() to clear signal_pending() and
restart __kernel_write() if it fails or returns a short write.
Otherwise the change above doesn't look like a full fix to me.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists