lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] coredump: ignore non-fatal signals when core dumping to a pipe
From
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>> >
>> > +static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> > +{
>> > + return signal_pending(tsk) &&
>> > + (sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGKILL) ||
>> > + sigismember(&tsk->signal->shared_pending.signal, SIGKILL));
>> > +}
>>
>> Why? __fatal_signal_pending() is enough, you do not need to check
>> ->shared_pending. And once again, ignoring the freezer problems I
>> do not think we need this check at all.
>>

The problem is that the kill signal remains in shared pending since
it'll never get dequeued.

localhost ~ # kill -KILL $!
localhost ~ # cat /proc/$!/status | grep -A4 SigPnd
SigPnd: 0000000000000000
ShdPnd: 0000000000000100
SigBlk: 0000000000000000
SigIgn: 0000000000000000
SigCgt: 0000000000000000

Normally a fatal signal will get propagated to the whole group but
that doesn't happen here because GROUP_EXIT is set:

/*
* Found a killable thread. If the signal will be fatal,
* then start taking the whole group down immediately.
*/
if (sig_fatal(p, sig) &&
!(signal->flags & (SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE | SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)) &&
!sigismember(&t->real_blocked, sig) &&
(sig == SIGKILL || !t->ptrace)) {
/*
* This signal will be fatal to the whole group.
*/


GROUP_EXIT is set in do_coredump->coredump_wait->zap_threads->zap_process.

What if complete_signal was changed to propagate KILL even if
SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set?

Regards,
Mandeep

>> IOW. Yes, we will probably need to do this change but only to be
>> freezer-friendly.
>
> And, forgot to mention, this logic is not right in the multi-
> threaded case. I mean, you can't assume that 'kill -9 dumpingtask"
> will wake the coredumping thread up. So this sigkill_pending() or
> __fatal_signal_pending() check can only work in the single-threaded
> case.
>
>> --- x/fs/coredump.c
>> +++ x/fs/coredump.c
>> @@ -416,17 +416,17 @@ static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct
>> pipe_lock(pipe);
>> pipe->readers++;
>> pipe->writers--;
>> + // TODO: wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll ?
>> + wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->wait);
>> + kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
>> + pipe_unlock(pipe);
>>
>> - while ((pipe->readers > 1) && (!signal_pending(current))) {
>> - wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->wait);
>> - kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
>> - pipe_wait(pipe);
>> - }
>> + wait_event_freezekillable(&pipe->wait, pipe->readers == 1);
>
> I tried to check (but didn't even try to test). I think this should
> work. Assuming that we teach SIGKILL to actually kill the dumper, but
> we need this in any case.
>
> But. Then we need to change pipe_release() to use wake_up_sync_poll()
> (which we do not have). Probably we can do this... but otoh if we protect
> the dumping thread from the non-fatal signals (and again, we need this
> anyway ;) then we can simply do wait_event_freezable().
>
> Damn. I need to think more.
>
> Oleg.
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-19 01:41    [W:0.156 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site