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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1263500 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()

Started byOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
First post2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
Last post2015-11-06 19:30 +0100
Articles 6 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in  complete_signal() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
    [PATCH v2 1/3] signal: change sig_task_ignored(force) to take  sig_kernel_only() into account Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
    [PATCH v2 2/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check  in complete_signal() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check  in complete_signal() Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-06 00:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check  in complete_signal() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-06 14:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check  in complete_signal() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-06 19:30 +0100

#1263500 — [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()

FromOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
Message-ID<qryoq-2og-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 11/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Cough... and on the second thought this patch needs v2. Sorry Andrew, please
> drop signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
> I'll send the updated version.
>
> With this patch the parent namespace can use any fatal signal (not only SIGKILL)
> to kill the init process in container. I do not think this is actually bad, but
> in any case this should not silently come as a side effect. And this is not
> consistent with SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE/sig_kernel_only() check in get_signal().
>
> Most probably I will just resend this patch as 2/2, while 1/2 will change
> sig_task_ignored() because afaics it is not actually right too (albeit not
> really buggy).

So this replaces
signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
2/3 is actually the same change, just the changelog was updated.

I'll try to send the cleanups tomorrow. sig_task_ignored() doesn't
look nice, sig_handler_ignored() must die, SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE checks
in sig_task_ignored() and get_signal() should be unified.

And to remind, we need to fix more problems I found yesterday.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1263502 — [PATCH v2 1/3] signal: change sig_task_ignored(force) to take sig_kernel_only() into account

FromOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH v2 1/3] signal: change sig_task_ignored(force) to take sig_kernel_only() into account
Message-ID<qryoq-2og-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1263500
sig_task_ignored(force => true) returns false unless sig_kernel_ignore().
This makes no sense if !sig_kernel_only(), the signal will be dropped in
get_signal() anyway.

This patch simplifies the next change and allows us to do more cleanups,
in particular we can unify the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE/sig_kernel_only() check
in sig_task_ignored() and get_signal().

The user-visible change is that, since we drop the SIG_DFL signal early,
it won't be reported to debugger. I think this is fine, but probably we
will change this later, we need to fix this logic anyway. Currently we
rely on the fact that (say) send_sigtrap() uses force_sig_info() which
clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE, and this is really bad.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/signal.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index d64efad..87209e5 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int sig_task_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig, bool force)
 	handler = sig_handler(t, sig);
 
 	if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
-			handler == SIG_DFL && !force)
+	    handler == SIG_DFL && !(force && sig_kernel_only(sig)))
 		return 1;
 
 	return sig_handler_ignored(handler, sig);
-- 
1.5.5.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1263503 — [PATCH v2 2/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()

FromOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date2015-11-05 20:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH v2 2/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
Message-ID<qryoq-2og-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1263500
complete_signal() checks SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE before it starts to destroy the
thread group, today this is unnecessary and even not 100% correct.

After the previous change we can rely on sig_task_ignored(); sig_fatal(sig)
&& SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE can only be true if we actually want to kill this task.

And it does not look right. fatal_signal_pending() should always imply that
the whole thread group (except ->group_exit_task if it is not NULL) is killed,
this check breaks the rule.

This explains WARN_ON(!JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING) in task_participate_group_stop()
triggered by the test-case from Dmitry:

	int main()
	{
		int pid = 1;
		ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, 0, 0);
		ptrace(PTRACE_SETOPTIONS, pid, 0, PTRACE_O_EXITKILL);
		sleep(1);
		return 0;
	}

do_signal_stop()->signal_group_exit() returns false because SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT
is not set, but task_set_jobctl_pending() checks fatal_signal_pending() and
does not set JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING.

The test-case above needs root and (correctly) crashes the kernel, but we can
trigger the same warning inside the container or using another test-case:

	static int init(void *arg)
	{
		for (;;)
			pause();
	}

	int main(void)
	{
		char stack[16 * 1024];

		for (;;) {
			int pid = clone(init, stack + sizeof(stack)/2,
					CLONE_NEWPID | SIGCHLD, NULL);
			assert(pid > 0);

			assert(ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, pid, 0, 0) == 0);
			assert(waitpid(-1, NULL, WSTOPPED) == pid);

			assert(ptrace(PTRACE_DETACH, pid, 0, SIGSTOP) == 0);
			assert(syscall(__NR_tkill, pid, SIGKILL) == 0);
			assert(pid == wait(NULL));
		}
	}

Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 kernel/signal.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 87209e5..7e9f6fa 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ static void complete_signal(int sig, struct task_struct *p, int group)
 	 * then start taking the whole group down immediately.
 	 */
 	if (sig_fatal(p, sig) &&
-	    !(signal->flags & (SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE | SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)) &&
+	    !(signal->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT) &&
 	    !sigismember(&t->real_blocked, sig) &&
 	    (sig == SIGKILL || !t->ptrace)) {
 		/*
-- 
1.5.5.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1263600 — Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()

FromAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date2015-11-06 00:40 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
Message-ID<qrCim-57c-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1263500
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:17:20 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Cough... and on the second thought this patch needs v2. Sorry Andrew, please
> > drop signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
> > I'll send the updated version.
> >
> > With this patch the parent namespace can use any fatal signal (not only SIGKILL)
> > to kill the init process in container. I do not think this is actually bad, but
> > in any case this should not silently come as a side effect. And this is not
> > consistent with SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE/sig_kernel_only() check in get_signal().
> >
> > Most probably I will just resend this patch as 2/2, while 1/2 will change
> > sig_task_ignored() because afaics it is not actually right too (albeit not
> > really buggy).
> 
> So this replaces
> signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
> 2/3 is actually the same change, just the changelog was updated.

It's awfully late.  Do you see any reason why we should jam this into 4.4?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264020 — Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()

FromOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date2015-11-06 14:40 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
Message-ID<qrPpg-55Y-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1263600
On 11/05, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:17:20 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Cough... and on the second thought this patch needs v2. Sorry Andrew, please
> > > drop signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
> > > I'll send the updated version.
> > >
> > > With this patch the parent namespace can use any fatal signal (not only SIGKILL)
> > > to kill the init process in container. I do not think this is actually bad, but
> > > in any case this should not silently come as a side effect. And this is not
> > > consistent with SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE/sig_kernel_only() check in get_signal().
> > >
> > > Most probably I will just resend this patch as 2/2, while 1/2 will change
> > > sig_task_ignored() because afaics it is not actually right too (albeit not
> > > really buggy).
> >
> > So this replaces
> > signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
> > 2/3 is actually the same change, just the changelog was updated.
>
> It's awfully late.  Do you see any reason why we should jam this into 4.4?

No, I think this can wait till 4.5.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1264210 — Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()

FromOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date2015-11-06 19:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] signal: kill the obsolete SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE check in complete_signal()
Message-ID<qrTVU-83z-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1264020
On 11/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/05, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 21:17:20 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So this replaces
> > > signal-kill-the-obsolete-signal_unkillable-check-in-complete_signal.patch
> > > 2/3 is actually the same change, just the changelog was updated.
> >
> > It's awfully late.  Do you see any reason why we should jam this into 4.4?
>
> No, I think this can wait till 4.5.

Oh. Andrew, please ignore this version too. I'll send v3.

Because when I tried to make the promised cleanups I have found yet another
ptrace/SIGKILL/SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE bug, and it seems that it needs to change
the same code paths again. I need to think.

Dmitry, do you realize how much I hate you? ;)

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web