[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70526737949ab3ad2d8fc551531d286e0f3d88f4.camel@trillion01.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 06:08:51 -0400
From: Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
"Pavel Begunkov>" <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Limit what can interrupt coredumps
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 20:57 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Olivier, I sent a 5.10 version for Nathan, any chance you can test
> this
> one for the current kernels? Basically this one should work for
> 5.11+,
> and the later 5.10 version is just for 5.10. I'm going to send it out
> separately for review.
>
> I do think this is the right solution, barring a tweak maybe on
> testing
> notify == TWA_SIGNAL first before digging into the task struct. But
> the
> principle is sound, and it'll work for other users of TWA_SIGNAL as
> well. None right now as far as I can tell, but the live patching is
> switching to TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL as well which will also cause issues
> with
> coredumps potentially.
>
Ok, I am going to give it a shot. This solution is probably superior to
the previous attempt as it does not inject io_uring dependency into the
coredump module.
The small extra change that I alluded to in my previous reply will
still be relevant even if we go with your patch...
I'll come back soon with your patch testing result and my small extra
change that I keep teasing about.
Greetings,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists