Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock

So. Liao, I am sorry, but I dislike your patch/approach in any case.

UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL complicates the state machine. And I don't like the fact
that set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING) is called twice, from handle_singlestep()
and uprobe_post_sstep_notifier(), this complicates the logic even more.

We need a flag, not the new state.

And if I read this patch correctly it is wrong:

	- uprobe_deny_signal() clears TIF_SIGPENDING and sets UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL

	- another signal cames after that and sets TIF_SIGPENDING again

	- in this case the task won't return to user-space and execute the probed
	  insn, exit_to_user_mode_loop() will notice another TIF_SIGPENDING and
	  call arch_do_signal_or_restart()->get_signal() again.

	- get_signal() will call uprobe_deny_signal() again hit

		WARN_ON_ONCE(utask->state != UTASK_SSTEP);


And no, we shouldn't change this check into UTASK_SSTEP || UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL.
Again, the fact that uprobe_deny_signal() cleared TIF_SIGPENDING must not be the
new state.

Oleg.

On 08/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

On 08/06, Liao, Chang wrote:

quoted

You're absolutely right. handle_signlestep() has chance to handle _DENY_SIGANL
unless it followed by setting TIF_UPROBE in uprobe_deny_signal(). This means
_DENY_SIGNAL is likey replaced during next uprobe single-stepping.

I believe introducing _DENY_SIGNAL as the immediate state between UTASK_SSTEP
and UTASK_SSTEP_ACK is still necessary. This allow uprobe_post_sstep_notifier()
to correctly restore TIF_SIGPENDING upon the completion of single-step.

A revised implementation would look like this:

Still looks "obviously wrong" to me... even the approach itself.

Perhaps I am wrong, yet another day when I can't even read emails on lkml
carefully, sorry.

But can you please send the patch which I could actually apply? This one
looks white-space damaged...

I'll try to reply with more details as soon I convince myself I fully
understand what does your patch actually do, but most probably not tomorrow.

Thanks,

Oleg.

quoted

------------------%<------------------

--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c

@@ -1980,6 +1980,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)

        if (task_sigpending(t)) {
                clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
+               utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL;

                if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
                        utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED;

@@ -2276,22 +2277,23 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
        int err = 0;

        uprobe = utask->active_uprobe;
-       if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_ACK)
+       switch (utask->state) {
+       case UTASK_SSTEP_ACK:
                err = arch_uprobe_post_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
-       else if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED)
+               break;
+       case UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED:
                arch_uprobe_abort_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
-       else
+               set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
+               break;
+       default:
                WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+       }

        put_uprobe(uprobe);
        utask->active_uprobe = NULL;
        utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
        xol_free_insn_slot(current);

-       spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
-       recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
-       spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
-
        if (unlikely(err)) {
                uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");
                force_sig(SIGILL);

@@ -2351,6 +2353,8 @@ int uprobe_post_sstep_notifier(struct pt_regs *regs)
                /* task is currently not uprobed */
                return 0;

+       if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL)
+               set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
        utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_ACK;
        set_thread_flag(TIF_UPROBE);
        return 1;

------------------>%------------------

quoted

Oleg.

--
BR
Liao, Chang