linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zap_pid_ns_processes: don't send SIGKILL to sub-threads

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: <874j9wolpy.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:23:37 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  Rachel Menge
 <rachelmenge@...ux.microsoft.com>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
  rcu@...r.kernel.org,  Wei Fu <fuweid89@...il.com>,
  apais@...ux.microsoft.com,  Sudhanva Huruli
 <Sudhanva.Huruli@...rosoft.com>,  Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,  Christian
 Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,  Mike Christie
 <michael.christie@...cle.com>,  Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>,
  Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,  "Paul E. McKenney"
 <paulmck@...nel.org>,  Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,  Neeraj
 Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,  Joel Fernandes
 <joel@...lfernandes.org>,  Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,  Boqun
 Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,  Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
  Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,  Lai Jiangshan
 <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,  Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zap_pid_ns_processes: don't send SIGKILL to sub-threads

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:

> On 06/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>> > The comment above the idr_for_each_entry_continue() loop tries to explain
>> > why we have to signal each thread in the namespace, but it is outdated.
>> > This code no longer uses kill_proc_info(), we have a target task so we can
>> > check thread_group_leader() and avoid the unnecessary group_send_sig_info.
>> > Better yet, we can change pid_task() to use PIDTYPE_TGID rather than _PID,
>> > this way it returns NULL if this pid is not a group-leader pid.
>> >
>> > Also, change this code to check SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT, the exiting process /
>> > thread doesn't necessarily has a pending SIGKILL. Either way these checks
>> > are racy without siglock, so the patch uses data_race() to shut up KCSAN.
>>
>> You remove the comment but the meat of what it was trying to say remains
>> true.  For processes in a session or processes is a process group a list
>> of all such processes is kept.  No such list is kept for a pid
>> namespace.  So the best we can do is walk through the allocated pid
>> numbers in the pid namespace.
>
> OK, I'll recheck tomorrow. Yet I think it doesn't make sense to send
> SIGKILL to sub-threads, and the comment looks misleading today. This was
> the main motivation, but again, I'll recheck.

Yes, we only need to send SIGKILL to only one thread.
Of course there are a few weird cases with zombie leader threads,
but I think the pattern you are using handles them.

>> It would also help if this explains that in the case of SIGKILL
>> complete_signal always sets SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT which makes that a good
>> check to use to see if the process has been killed (with SIGKILL).
>
> Well, if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set we do not care if this process was
> killed or not. It (the whole thread group) is going to exit, that is all.
>
> We can even remove this check, it is just the optimization, just like
> the current fatal_signal_pending() check.

I just meant that the optimization is effective because
group_send_sig_info calls complete_signal which sets SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT.

Which makes it an almost 100% accurate test, which makes it a very
good optimization.  Especially in the case of multi-threaded processes
where the code will arrive there for every thread.

Eric