linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	anton@samba.org
Subject: [PATCH] exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:57:11 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <15521.1266224231@neuling.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100215155821.7298.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

In message <20100215155821.7298.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > In message <20100214164023.GA2726@jm.kir.nu> you wrote:
> > > It looks like the commit 803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921
> > > (fs/exec.c: restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit) broke my
> > > user mode Linux setup by somehow preventing system setup from running
> > > properly (or killing some processes that try to mount things, etc.).
> > > This commit turned up as the reason based on git bisect and reverting it
> > > fixes my UML test setup (Ubuntu 9.10 on both host and in UML and AMD64
> > > arch for both). I have no idea what exactly would be the main cause for
> > > this issue, but this looks like a somewhat unfortunately timed
> > > regression in 2.6.33-rc8.
> > > 
> > > The failed run shows like this (with current linux-2.6.git):
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > EXT3-fs (ubda): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode
> > > VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly on device 98:0.
> > > IRQ 3/console-write: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > IRQ 2/console: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > mountall: mount /sys/kernel/debug [218] killed by KILL signal
> > > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /sys/kernel/debug
> > > mountall: mount /dev [219] killed by KILL signal
> > > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /dev
> > > mountall: mount /tmp [220] killed by KILL signal
> > > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /tmp
> > > mountall: mount /var/lock [222] killed by KILL signal
> > > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /var/lock
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > With 803bf5ec reverted, UML comes up and the output looks like this:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > EXT3-fs (ubda): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode
> > > VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly on device 98:0.
> > > IRQ 3/console-write: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > IRQ 2/console: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs
> > > init: procps main process (226) terminated with status 255
> > > fsck from util-linux-ng 2.16
> > > ...
> > 
> > Jouni,
> > 
> > I can reproduce this now.  
> > 
> > We got the logic wrong in one of the cleanups and hence we aren't
> > actually changing the stack reservation ever, when we intended on
> > allocating up to 20 new pages.  
> > 
> > The:
> > 	rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> > always chooses stack_size hence we end up not changing the stack at all.
> > This seems to cause fatal problems on UML, but is obviously not what was
> > intended for archs as well.  
> > 
> > The following works for me on PPC64 64k and 4k pages and UML on x86_64. 
> > 
> > Let me know if it fixes it for you also.
> > 
> > Mikey
> > 
> > 
> > exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation
> > 
> > 803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921 (fs/exec.c: restrict initial
> > stack space expansion to rlimit) attempts to limit the initial stack to
> > 20*PAGE_SIZE.  Unfortunately, in also attempting ensure the stack is not
> > reduced in size, we ended up not changing the stack at all.  
> > 
> > This caused a regression in UML resulting in most guest processes to be
> > killed. 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> > cc: <stable@kernel.org>
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index e95c692..e0e7b3c 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -637,15 +637,16 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> >  	 * will align it up.
> >  	 */
> >  	rlim_stack = rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) & PAGE_MASK;
> > -	rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> >  	if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack)
> > -		stack_base = vma->vm_start + rlim_stack;
> > +		/*  Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */
> > +		stack_base = vma->vm_start + max(rlim_stack,stack_size);
> >  	else
> >  		stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_expand;
> >  #else
> >  	if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack)
> > -		stack_base = vma->vm_end - rlim_stack;
> > +		/*  Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */
> > +		stack_base = vma->vm_end - max(rlim_stack,stack_size);
> >  	else
> >  		stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_expand;
> >  #endif
> 
> -	rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> +	/*  Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */
> +	rlim_stack = max(rlim_stack, stack_size);
> 
> is better fix?

Actually, I think we can just get rid of min() line altogether.
expand_stack checks to make sure the stack is getting bigger, otherwise
it does nothing.  We don't need to bother with this check.

The below works for me on UML x86_64 and ppc64 64k and 4k pages.

Mikey

exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation

803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921 (fs/exec.c: restrict initial
stack space expansion to rlimit) attempts to limit the initial stack to
20*PAGE_SIZE.  Unfortunately, in attempting ensure the stack is not
reduced in size, we ended up not changing the stack at all.

This size reduction check is not necessary as the expand_stack call does
this already.

This caused a regression in UML resulting in most guest processes being
killed.

Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
cc: <stable@kernel.org>
---
 fs/exec.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/fs/exec.c
+++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c
@@ -637,7 +637,6 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm 
 	 * will align it up.
 	 */
 	rlim_stack = rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) & PAGE_MASK;
-	rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size);
 #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
 	if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack)
 		stack_base = vma->vm_start + rlim_stack;

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-02-15  8:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-14 16:40 2.6.33-rc8 breaks UML with Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit Jouni Malinen
2010-02-14 22:03 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-15  2:38   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15  7:02     ` Jouni Malinen
2010-02-15  6:56   ` Jouni Malinen
2010-02-14 23:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-02-15  6:30 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-15  6:59   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15  7:17     ` Jouni Malinen
2010-02-15  8:57     ` Michael Neuling [this message]
2010-02-15  9:04       ` [PATCH] exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15  9:08       ` Américo Wang
2010-02-15  8:57     ` 2.6.33-rc8 breaks UML with Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit Américo Wang
2010-02-15  9:03       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-15  7:12   ` Jouni Malinen

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=15521.1266224231@neuling.org \
    --to=mikey@neuling.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=j@w1.fi \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).