From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check PF_EXITING
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:55:43 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YuF8H3ZVNugbLtFC@tycho.pizza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871qu6bjp3.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:32:08AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza> writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 08:54:59PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Oh - I didn't either - checking the sigkill in shared signals *seems*
> >> legit if they can be put there - but since you posted the new patch I
> >> assumed his reasoning was clear to you. I know Eric's busy, cc:ing Oleg
> >> for his interpretation too.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> Having __fatal_signal_pending check SIGKILL in shared signals is
> completely and utterly wrong.
>
> What __fatal_signal_pending reports is if a signal has gone through
> short cirucuit delivery after determining that the delivery of the
> signal will terminate the process.
This short-circuiting you're talking about happens in __send_signal()?
The problem here is that __send_signal() will add things to the shared
queue:
pending = (type != PIDTYPE_PID) ? &t->signal->shared_pending : &t->pending;
and indeed we add it to the shared set because of the way
zap_pid_ns_processes() calls it:
roup_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, task, PIDTYPE_MAX);
> Using "sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGKILL)" to report that a
> fatal signal has experienced short circuit delivery is a bit of an
> abuse, but essentially harmless as tkill of SIGKILL to a thread will
> result in every thread in the process experiencing short circuit
> delivery of the fatal SIGKILL. So a pending SIGKILL can't really mean
> anything else.
This is the part I don't follow. If it's ok to send a signal to this
set, why is it not ok to also look there (other than that it was a
slight hack in the first place)? Maybe it will short circuit
more threads, but that seems ok.
> After having looked at the code a little more I can unfortunately also
> say that testing PF_EXITING in __fatal_signal_pending will cause
> kernel_wait4 in zap_pid_ns_processes to not sleep, and instead to return
> 0. Which will cause zap_pid_ns_processes to busy wait. That seems very
> unfortunate.
>
> I hadn't realized it at the time I wrote zap_pid_ns_processes but I
> think anything called from do_exit that cares about signal pending state
> is pretty much broken and needs to be fixed.
> So the question is how do we fix the problem in fuse that shows up
> during a pid namespace exit without having interruptible sleeps we need
> to wake up?
>
> What are the code paths that experience the problem?
[<0>] request_wait_answer+0x282/0x710 [fuse]
[<0>] fuse_simple_request+0x502/0xc10 [fuse]
[<0>] fuse_flush+0x431/0x630 [fuse]
[<0>] filp_close+0x96/0x120
[<0>] put_files_struct+0x15c/0x2c0
[<0>] do_exit+0xa00/0x2450
[<0>] do_group_exit+0xb2/0x2a0
[<0>] get_signal+0x1eed/0x2090
[<0>] arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x89/0x1bc0
[<0>] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x11d/0x1b0
[<0>] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x19/0x50
[<0>] do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90
[<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
is the full call stack, I have a reproducer here (make check will run
it): https://github.com/tych0/kernel-utils/tree/master/fuse2
In addition to fuse, it looks like nfs_file_flush() eventually ends up
in __fatal_signal_pending(), and probably a few others that want to
synchronize with something outside the local kernel.
> Will refactoring zap_pid_ns_processes as I have proposed so that it does
> not use kernel_wait4 help sort this out? AKA make it work something
> like thread group leader of a process and not allow wait to reap the
> init process of a pid namespace until all of the processes in a pid
> namespaces have been gone. Not that I see the problem in using
> kernel_wait4 it looks like zap_pid_ns_processes needs to stop calling
> kernel_wait4 regardless of the fuse problem.
I can look at this, but I really don't think it will help: in this
brave new world, what wakes up tasks stuck like the above? They're
still looking at the wrong signal set.
Tycho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-27 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-23 17:21 strange interaction between fuse + pidns Tycho Andersen
2022-06-23 21:55 ` Vivek Goyal
2022-06-23 23:41 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-06-24 17:36 ` Vivek Goyal
2022-07-11 10:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-07-11 13:59 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-07-11 20:25 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-11 21:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-11 22:53 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-11 23:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-12 13:43 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-12 14:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-12 15:14 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-13 17:53 ` [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check PF_EXITING Tycho Andersen
2022-07-20 15:03 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2022-07-20 20:58 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-21 1:54 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2022-07-27 15:44 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-27 16:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-27 17:55 ` Tycho Andersen [this message]
2022-07-28 18:48 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-27 17:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2022-07-27 18:18 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-27 19:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2022-07-27 19:40 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-28 9:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2022-07-28 21:20 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-29 5:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-29 13:50 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-29 16:15 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-29 16:48 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-07-29 17:40 ` [RFC][PATCH] fuse: In fuse_flush only wait if someone wants the return code Eric W. Biederman
2022-07-29 20:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2022-07-30 0:15 ` Al Viro
2022-07-30 5:10 ` [RFC][PATCH v2] " Eric W. Biederman
2022-08-01 15:16 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-08-02 12:50 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-08-15 13:59 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-08-15 17:55 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2022-09-01 14:06 ` [PATCH] " Tycho Andersen
2022-09-19 15:03 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-09-20 18:02 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2022-09-26 14:17 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-09-27 9:46 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-09-29 14:05 ` [fuse-devel] " Stef Bon
2022-09-29 16:39 ` [PATCH v2] " Tycho Andersen
2022-09-30 13:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-09-30 14:01 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-09-30 14:41 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-09-30 16:09 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-10-26 9:01 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-11-14 16:02 ` [PATCH v3] " Tycho Andersen
2022-11-28 15:00 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-12-08 14:26 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-12-08 17:49 ` Tycho Andersen
2022-12-19 19:16 ` Tycho Andersen
2023-01-03 14:51 ` Tycho Andersen
2023-01-05 15:15 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2023-01-26 14:12 ` Miklos Szeredi
2022-09-30 19:47 ` [PATCH] " Serge E. Hallyn
2022-09-19 15:46 ` [RFC][PATCH v2] " Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YuF8H3ZVNugbLtFC@tycho.pizza \
--to=tycho@tycho.pizza \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).