linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coredump debugging: add a tracepoint to report the coredumping

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: <20240219170038.GA710@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:00:38 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: wenyang.linux@...mail.com, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump debugging: add a tracepoint to report the
 coredumping

On 02/19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:49:24 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02/17, wenyang.linux@...mail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@...mail.com>
> > >
> > > Currently coredump_task_exit() takes some time to wait for the generation
> > > of the dump file. But if the user-space wants to receive a notification
> > > as soon as possible it maybe inconvenient.
> > >
> > > Add the new trace_sched_process_coredump() into coredump_task_exit(),
> > > this way a user-space monitor could easily wait for the exits and
> > > potentially make some preparations in advance.
> >
> > Can't comment, I never know when the new tracepoint will make sense.
> >
> > Stupid question. Can we simply shift trace_sched_process_exit() up
> > before coredump_task_exit() ?
>
> Reading the rest of the thread and looking at the code, we do have this:
>
> void __noreturn do_exit(long code)
> {
> 	struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> 	int group_dead;
>
> [...]
> 	acct_collect(code, group_dead);
> 	if (group_dead)
> 		tty_audit_exit();
> 	audit_free(tsk);
>
> 	tsk->exit_code = code;
> 	taskstats_exit(tsk, group_dead);
>
> 	exit_mm();
>
> 	if (group_dead)
> 		acct_process();
> 	trace_sched_process_exit(tsk);
>
> There's a lot that happens before we trigger the above event.

and a lot after.

To me the current placement of trace_sched_process_exit() looks absolutely
random.

> I could
> imagine that there are users expecting those actions to have taken place by
> the time the event triggered. Like the "exit_mm()" call, as well as many
> others.
>
> I would be leery of moving that tracepoint.

And I agree. I am always scared of every user-visible change, simply
because it is user-visbible.

If it was not clear, I didn't try to nack this patch. I simply do not know
how people use the tracepoints and for what. Apart from debugging.

But if we add the new one into coredump_task_exit(), then we probably want
another one in ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT) ? It too can "take some time"
before the exiting task actually exits.

So I think this needs some discussion, and the changelog should probably say
more.

In short: I am glad you are here, I leave this to you and Wen ;)

Oleg.