Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1710752

Re: SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and init again

From Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@oracle.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and init again
Date 2017-08-14 11:40 +0200
Message-ID <uek0N-2qo-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <tAcBs-7Ga-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <tAx3b-46S-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tAQyR-tm-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


Hi Oleg,

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:16:51PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:18:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Jamie,
> > 
> > On 04/25, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Oleg,
> > >
> > > I'm back looking at SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and debugging child reapers again, 
> > > and the current issue is when running code in the target process, 
> > > SIGTRAP firing and that causing SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE protection to be 
> > > removed in force_sig_info():
> > >
> > > 	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
> > > 		t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> > 
> > Yes, this is what I meant when I said force_sig_info() needs changes too.
> > I was going to fix it "tomorrow" but I was distracted and then forgot.
> > 
> > >   @@ -1185,7 +1185,7 @@ force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
> > >    			recalc_sigpending_and_wake(t);
> > >    		}
> > >    	}
> > >   -	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
> > >   +	if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> > >    		t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> > >    	ret = specific_send_sig_info(sig, info, t);
> > >    	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> > 
> > Not sure, let me think a bit more... and this is not enough anyway.
> > 
> > perhaps we should start with this simple change, but the "real" fix
> > needs a lot of cleanups, although I am not sure if we will ever do this.
> 
> Okay, sounds good.  I'm happy to spend more time looking at this if you 
> have suggestions - in the context of namespaces and containers this 
> seems more relevant than when it was just the system init that we were 
> protecting.

Any objections to moving ahead with this patch?

Thanks,

Jamie

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and init again Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@oracle.com> - 2017-08-14 11:40 +0200
  Re: SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and init again Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2017-08-14 18:30 +0200

csiph-web