linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: document the signal_pending() check in offline

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: <6e473d64-fbbc-db12-99ee-d32768d8af85@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:17:11 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: document the signal_pending() check
 in offline_pages()



On 7/11/23 23:10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Let's update the documentation that any signal is sufficient, and
> add a comment that not only checking for fatal signals is historical
> baggage: changing it now could break existing user space. although
> unlikely.
> 
> For example, when an app provides a custom SIGALRM handler and triggers
> memory offlining, the timeout cmd would no longer stop memory offlining,
> because SIGALRM would no longer be considered a fatal signal.
> 
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/mm/memory-hotplug.rst | 2 +-
>  mm/memory_hotplug.c                             | 5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/memory-hotplug.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/memory-hotplug.rst
> index 1b02fe5807cc..bd77841041af 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/memory-hotplug.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/memory-hotplug.rst
> @@ -669,7 +669,7 @@ when still encountering permanently unmovable pages within ZONE_MOVABLE
>  (-> BUG), memory offlining will keep retrying until it eventually succeeds.
>  
>  When offlining is triggered from user space, the offlining context can be
> -terminated by sending a fatal signal. A timeout based offlining can easily be
> +terminated by sending a signal. A timeout based offlining can easily be
>  implemented via::
>  
>  	% timeout $TIMEOUT offline_block | failure_handling
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index 3f231cf1b410..7cfd13c91568 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1843,6 +1843,11 @@ int __ref offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>  	do {
>  		pfn = start_pfn;
>  		do {
> +			/*
> +			 * Historically we always checked for any signal and
> +			 * can't limit it to fatal signals without eventually
> +			 * breaking user space.> +			 */

Just curious, could 'signal type' to stop memory offline process be considered
an ABI and cannot be changed in kernel ever if required ? Just wondering if an
additional '!fatal_signal_pending()' check be introduced to warn about support
being deprecated, before finally replacing it with fatal_signal_pending().

>  			if (signal_pending(current)) {
>  				ret = -EINTR;
>  				reason = "signal backoff";