lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 11/11] signal: Ignore all but multi-process signals that come in during fork.
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> On 07/11, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> >> - recalc_sigpending();
>> >> - if (signal_pending(current)) {
>> >> + if (read_seqcount_retry(&current->signal->multi_process_seq, seq) ||
>> >> + fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
>> >> retval = -ERESTARTNOINTR;
>> >> goto bad_fork_cancel_cgroup;
>> >
>> > So once again, I think this is not right, see the discussion on
>> > bugzilla.
>>
>> I am trying to dig through and understand your concerns. I am having
>> difficulty understanding your concerns.
>>
>> Do the previous patches look good to you?
>
> Yes, yes, personally I like 1-10 after a quick glance. I'll try to read this
> series carefully later, but I don't think I will find something really
> wrong.

Good. Then I will consider those acked by both you and Linus.

Oleg do you mind if I add:
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

To those patches?

>> If I understand you correctly. Your concern is that since we added the:
>>
>> recalc_sigpending();
>> if (signal_pending(current))
>> return -ERESTARTNOINTR;
>>
>> Other (non-signal) code such as the freezer has come to depend upon that
>> test. Changing the test in the proposed way will allow the new child to
>> escape the freezer, as it is not guaranteed the new child will be
>> frozen.
>
> Yes.


>> It seems reasonable to look at other things that set TIF_SIGPENDING and
>> see if any of them are broken by the fork changes.
>
> Again, please look at do_signal_stop(). If it was the source of signal_pending(),
> copy_process() should fail. Or we should update the new thread to participate in
> group-stop, but then we need to set TIF_SIGPENDING, copy the relevant part of
> current->jobctl, and increment ->group_stop_count at least.

Hmm. That is an interesting twist.

In general for do_signal_stop is fine as long as we have the
recalc_sigpending at the start of fork.

But yes. What happens when it isn't a fork but it is a clone. Signals
that affect the entire thread group (STOP CLONE) are very interesting
from this perspective.

Same issue as with fork, but different scope.

Eric
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-15 22:06    [W:0.128 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site