Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group leaders
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
Date: 2024-01-23 21:10:26
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:56:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Too late for me, but I don't understand this patch after a quick glance. perhaps I missed something...
Thanks for taking a look.
On 01/23, Tycho Andersen wrote:quoted
@@ -256,6 +256,17 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p) write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); ptrace_release_task(p); thread_pid = get_pid(p->thread_pid); + + /* + * If we're not the leader, notify any waiters on our pidfds. Note that + * we don't want to notify the leader until /everyone/ in the thread + * group is dead, viz. the condition below. + * + * We have to do this here, since __exit_signal() will + * __unhash_processes(), and break do_notify_pidfd()'s lookup. + */ + if (!thread_group_leader(p)) + do_notify_pidfd(p);This doesn't look consistent. If the task is a group leader do_notify_pidfd() is called by exit_notify() when it becomes a zombie (if no other threads), before it is reaped by its parent (unless autoreap).
There is another path, also in release_task(), that I was trying to mirror since it deals explicitly with sub-threads but,
If it is a sub-thread, it is called by release_task() above. Note that a sub-thread can become a zombie too if it is traced.
I didn't know about this.
quoted
__exit_signal(p);and, do_notify_pidfd() is called before __exit_signal() which does __unhash_process() -> detach_pid(PIDTYPE_PID). Doesn't this mean that pidfd_poll() can hang? thread_group_exited() won't return true after do_notify_pidfd() above, not to mention that thread_group_empty() is not possible if !thread_group_leader().
I was wondering about this too, but the test_non_tgl_poll_exit test in the next patch tests exactly this and works as expected.
So. When do we want to do do_notify_pidfd() ? Whe the task (leader or not) becomes a zombie (passes exit_notify) or when it is reaped by release_task?
It seems like we'd want it when exit_notify() is called in principle,
since that's when the pid actually dies. When it is reaped is "mostly
unrelated". Something like,
1. in the "normal" exit_notify() paths via do_notify_parent()
2. if none of those cases are true (aka the final else in
exit_notify()) and the thread is not ptraced
3. via release_task() finally if this was the thread group leader and
it died before some sub-thread
then in pidfd_poll(), we can do:
if (!tsk || (tsk->exit_state >= 0) || thread_group_exited())
do_notify_pidfd();
?
Either way pidfd_poll() needs more changes with this patch and it can't use thread_group_exited(). If do_notify_pidfd() is called by release_task() after __exit_signal(), it can just check pid_has_task(PIDTYPE_PID).
I suppose this is why my test works, since pid_task(PIDTYPE_PID) is null after release_task(). But if we want it to happen earlier, we'll have to do something like the above. Tycho