lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v11 for 4.15 01/24] Restartable sequences system call
----- On Nov 16, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Nov 16, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:03:51PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * If parent process has a registered restartable sequences area, the
>> >> + * child inherits. Only applies when forking a process, not a thread. In
>> >> + * case a parent fork() in the middle of a restartable sequence, set the
>> >> + * resume notifier to force the child to retry.
>> >> + */
>> >> +static inline void rseq_fork(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long clone_flags)
>> >> +{
>> >> + if (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) {
>> >> + t->rseq = NULL;
>> >> + t->rseq_len = 0;
>> >> + t->rseq_sig = 0;
>> >> + } else {
>> >> + t->rseq = current->rseq;
>> >> + t->rseq_len = current->rseq_len;
>> >> + t->rseq_sig = current->rseq_sig;
>> >> + rseq_set_notify_resume(t);
>> >> + }
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > This hurts my brain... what happens if you fork a multi-threaded
>> > process?
>> >
>> > Do we fully inherit the TLS state of the calling thread?
>>
>> Yes, exactly. The user-space TLS should be inherited from that of
>> the calling thread.
>>
>> At kernel-level, the only thing that's not inherited here is the
>> task struct rseq_event_mask, which tracks whether a restart is
>> needed. But this would only be relevant if fork() can be invoked
>> from a signal handler, or if fork() could be invoked from a
>> rseq critical section (which really makes little sense).
>
> Whether it makes sense or not does not matter much, especially in context
> of user space. You cannot make assumptions like that. When something can be
> done, then it's bound to happen sooner than later because somebody thinks
> he is extra clever.
>
> The first priority is robustness in any aspect which has to do with user
> space.
>
>> Should I copy the current->rseq_event_mask on process fork just to
>> be on the safe side though ?
>
> I think so, unless you let fork() fail when invoked from a rseq critical
> section.

Allright, I'll set the rseq_event_mask to 0 explicitly on exec() and
thread-fork, and copy it from the parent on process-fork.

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:18    [W:0.107 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site