From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 15:39:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180803133923.GA19752@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJwJo6bmFZ+2wni1d-t2hh_RqYvnN2c+NJPNyrBLp9H=StTZFg@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/02, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>
> Hi Ivan,
>
> 2018-07-31 1:56 GMT+01:00 Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>:
> > We were seeing unexplained segfaults in coreutils processes and other
> > basic utilities that we tracked down to binfmt_elf failing to load
> > segments for ld.so. Digging further, the actual problem seems to occur
> > when a process gets sigkilled while it is still being loaded by the
> > kernel. In our case when _do_page_fault goes for a retry it will return
> > early as it first checks for fatal_signal_pending(), so load_elf_interp
> > also returns with error and as a result search_binary_handler will
> > force_sigsegv() which is pretty confusing as nothing actually failed
> > here.
> >
> > Fixes: 19d860a140be ("handle suicide on late failure exits in execve() in search_binary_handler()")
> > Reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/14/5
> > Signed-off-by: Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>
>
> +Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> +Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Thanks...
and sorry, I fail to understand the problem and what/how this patch tries to fix.
Hmm. After I read the next email from Dmitry it seems to me that the whole purpose
of this patch is to avoid print_fatal_signal()? If yes, the changelog should clearly
explain this.
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -1656,7 +1656,8 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {
> > /* we got to flush_old_exec() and failed after it */
> > read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
> > - force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > + if (!fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > + force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
I won't argue, but may be force_sigsegv() should check fatal_signal_pending()
itself. setup_rt_frame() can too fail if fatal_signal_pending() by the same
reason.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-03 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-31 0:56 [PATCH RESEND] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal Ivan Delalande
2018-08-02 19:53 ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-08-02 20:19 ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-08-03 13:39 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2018-08-03 23:15 ` Ivan Delalande
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=20180803133923.GA19752@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=0x7f454c46@gmail.com \
--cc=colona@arista.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).