linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] fuse: do not generate interrupt requests for fatal signals

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <03658a84-09e0-40a1-aa30-9f92e82a6b0d@shopee.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:36:37 +0800
From: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
To: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fuse: do not generate interrupt requests for fatal signals



On 2024/6/21 05:40, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/20/24 08:43, Haifeng Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/6/17 15:25, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:01:39PM GMT, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 12:44, Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So why the client doesn't get woken up?
>>>>
>>>> Need to find out what the server (lxcfs) is doing.  Can you do a
>>>> strace of lxcfs to see the communication on the fuse device?
>>>
>>> Fwiw, I'm one of the orignal authors and maintainers of LXCFS so if you
>>> have specific questions, I may be able to help.
>>
>> Thanks. All server threads of lcxfs wokrs fine now.
>>
>> So can we add another interface to abort those dead request?
>> If the client thread got killed and wait for relpy, but the fuse sever didn't 
>> send reply for some unknown reason，we can use this interface to wakeup the client thread.
> 
> Isn't that a manual workaround? I.e. an admin or a script needs to trigger it?

Yes.

> 
> There is a discussion in this thread to add request timeouts
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_linux-2Dkernel_20240605153552.GB21567-40localhost.localdomain_T_&d=DwIDaQ&c=R1GFtfTqKXCFH-lgEPXWwic6stQkW4U7uVq33mt-crw&r=3uoFsejk1jN2oga47MZfph01lLGODc93n4Zqe7b0NRk&m=8O09nPSMPRZHOnfDnsm3lTwcO7AV93meeZP-F_k_u8w7XO04ISrP36bbcoEMUSrW&s=FRDpgmP8jGWJnoZna3OrFnvx44cCgywsGOeMY3fCeFc&e= 
> I guess for interrupted requests that would be definitely a case where timeouts could be
> applied?

Yes. If the requset can be cancelled until the timeout elapsed, we don't need to abort the dead requests manually.

Thanks!

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bernd