On 05/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > But why is it bad if the tracee doesn't sleep in schedule ? If it races
> > with SIGKILL. I still can't understand this.
> >
> > Yes, wait_task_inactive() can fail, so you need to remove WARN_ON_ONCE()
> > in 11/12.
>
> >
> > Why is removing TASK_WAKEKILL from TASK_TRACED and complicating
> > *signal_wake_up() better?
>
> Not changing __state is better because it removes special cases
> from the scheduler that only apply to ptrace.
Hmm. But I didn't argue with that? I like the idea of JOBCTL_TASK_FROZEN.
I meant, I do not think that removing KILLABLE from TASK_TRACED (not
from __state) and complicating *signal_wake_up() (I mean, compared
to your previous version) is a good idea.
And. At least in context of this series it is fine if the JOBCTL_TASK_FROZEN
tracee do not block in schedule(), just you need to remove WARN_ON_ONCE()
around wait_task_inactive().
> > And even if we need to ensure the tracee will always block after
> > ptrace_freeze_traced(), we can change signal_pending_state() to
> > return false if JOBCTL_PTRACE_FROZEN. Much simpler, imo. But still
> > looks unnecessary to me.
>
> We still need to change signal_wake_up in that case. Possibly
> signal_wake_up_state.
Of course. See above.
> >> if we depend on wait_task_inactive failing if the process is in the
> >> wrong state.
> >
> > OK, I guess this is what I do not understand. Could you spell please?
> >
> > And speaking of RT, wait_task_inactive() still can fail because
> > cgroup_enter_frozen() takes css_set_lock? And it is called under
> > preempt_disable() ? I don't understand the plan :/
>
> Let me describe his freezer change as that is much easier to get to the
> final result. RT has more problems as it turns all spin locks into
> sleeping locks. When a task is frozen
[...snip...]
Oh, thanks Eric, but I understand this part. But I still can't understand
why is it that critical to block in schedule... OK, I need to think about
it. Lets assume this is really necessary.
Anyway. I'd suggest to not change TASK_TRACED in this series and not
complicate signal_wake_up() more than you did in your previous version:
static inline void signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume)
{
bool wakekill = resume && !(t->jobctl & JOBCTL_DELAY_WAKEKILL);
signal_wake_up_state(t, wakekill ? TASK_WAKEKILL : 0);
}
JOBCTL_PTRACE_FROZEN is fine.
ptrace_check_attach() can do
if (!ret && !ignore_state &&
/*
* This can only fail if the frozen tracee races with
* SIGKILL and enters schedule() with fatal_signal_pending
*/
!wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED))
ret = -ESRCH;
return ret;
Now. If/when we really need to ensure that the frozen tracee always
blocks and wait_task_inactive() never fails, we can just do
- add the fatal_signal_pending() check into ptrace_stop()
(like this patch does)
- say, change signal_pending_state:
static inline int signal_pending_state(unsigned int state, struct
task_struct *p)
{
if (!(state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_WAKEKILL)))
return 0;
if (!signal_pending(p))
return 0;
if (p->jobctl & JOBCTL_TASK_FROZEN)
return 0;
return (state & TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) ||
__fatal_signal_pending(p);
}
in a separate patch which should carefully document the need for this
change.
> > I didn't look at JOBCTL_PTRACE_SIGNR yet. But this looks minor to me,
> > I mean, I am not sure it worth the trouble.
>
> The immediate problem the JOBCTL_PTRACE_SIGNR patch solves is:
> - stopping in ptrace_report_syscall.
> - Not having PT_TRACESYSGOOD set.
> - The tracee being killed with a fatal signal
^^^^^^
tracer ?
> - The tracee sending SIGTRAP to itself.
Oh, but this is clear. But do we really care? If the tracer exits
unexpectedly, the tracee can have a lot more problems, I don't think
that this particular one is that important.
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
