Thread (2 messages) 2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-06-09

Re: [RFC] coredump: Do not interrupt dump for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2021-06-09 20:33:59
Also in: linux-fsdevel, lkml

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 1:17 PM Eric W. Biederman [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
In short the coredump code deliberately supports being interrupted by
SIGKILL, and depends upon prepare_signal to filter out all other
signals.
Hmm.

I have to say, that looks like the core reason for the bug: if you
want to be interrupted by a fatal signal, you shouldn't use
signal_pending(), you should use fatal_signal_pending().

Now, the fact that we haven't cleared TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL for the first
signal is clearly the immediate cause of this, but at the same time I
really get the feeling that that coredump aborting code should always
had used fatal_signal_pending().

We do want to be able to abort core-dumps (stuck network filesystems
is the traditional reason), but the fact that it used signal_pending()
looks buggy.

In fact, the very comment in that dump_interrupted() function seems to
acknowledge that signal_pending() is all kinds of silly.

So regardless of the fact that io_uring does seem to have messed up
this part of signals, I think the fix is not to change
signal_pending() to task_sigpending(), but to just do what the comment
suggests we should do.

But also:
With the io_uring code comes an extra test in signal_pending
for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL (which is something about asking a task to run
task_work_run).
Jens, is this still relevant? Maybe we can revert that whole series
now, and make the confusing difference between signal_pending() and
task_sigpending() go away again?

               Linus
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help