Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:03:28 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check PF_EXITING |
| |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:53:05AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > The wait_* code uses signal_pending_state() to test whether a thread has > been interrupted, which ultimately uses __fatal_signal_pending() to detect > if there is a fatal signal. > > When a pid ns dies, it does: > > group_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, task, PIDTYPE_MAX); > > for all the tasks in the pid ns. That calls through: > > group_send_sig_info() -> > do_send_sig_info() -> > send_signal_locked() -> > __send_signal_locked() > > which does: > > pending = (type != PIDTYPE_PID) ? &t->signal->shared_pending : &t->pending; > > which puts sigkill in the set of shared signals, but not the individual > pending ones. When complete_signal() is called at the end of > __send_signal_locked(), if the task already had PF_EXITING (i.e. was > already waiting on something in its fd closing path like a fuse flush), > complete_signal() will not wake up the thread, since wants_signal() checks > PF_EXITING before testing for SIGKILL. > > If tasks are stuck in a killable wait (e.g. a fuse flush operation), they > won't see this shared signal, and will hang forever, since TIF_SIGPENDING > is set, but the fatal signal can't be detected. So, let's also look for > PF_EXITING in __fatal_signal_pending(). > > Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
Cool, thanks for nailing this down!
I assume you've been running this on some boxes with no weird effects?
> --- > include/linux/sched/signal.h | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h > index cafbe03eed01..c20b7e1d89ef 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h > @@ -402,7 +402,8 @@ static inline int signal_pending(struct task_struct *p) > > static inline int __fatal_signal_pending(struct task_struct *p) > { > - return unlikely(sigismember(&p->pending.signal, SIGKILL)); > + return unlikely(sigismember(&p->pending.signal, SIGKILL) || > + p->flags & PF_EXITING);
Looking around at the callers this does seem safe, but the name does now seem misleading. Should this be renamed to something like exiting_or_fatal_signal_pending()?
> } > > static inline int fatal_signal_pending(struct task_struct *p) > > base-commit: 32346491ddf24599decca06190ebca03ff9de7f8 > -- > 2.34.1 >
| |