linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] signal: Dequeue SIGKILL even if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT/group_exec

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 20:23:02 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>, linux@...mhuis.info,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, axboe@...nel.dk, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mst@...hat.com,
        sgarzare@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] signal: Dequeue SIGKILL even if
 SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT/group_exec_task is set

On 05/18, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 08:08:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/18, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, but these are issues that exist with PF_IO_WORKER then too
> >
> > This was my thought too but I am starting to think I was wrong.
> >
> > Of course I don't understand the code in io_uring/ but it seems
> > that it always breaks the IO loops if get_signal() returns SIGKILL.
>
> Yeah, it does and I think Mike has a point that vhost could be running
> into an issue here that io_uring currently does avoid. But I don't think
> we should rely on that.

So what do you propose?

Unless (quite possibly) I am confused again, unlike io_uring vhost can't
tolerate signal_pending() == T in the cleanup-after-SIGKILL paths?

Oleg.