On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:33 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/26, S?bastien Dugu? wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:21:41 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > + target = good_sigevent(&event);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(!target || (target->flags & PF_EXITING)))
> > > > + goto out_unlock;
> > >
> > > PF_EXITING check is racy and unneded. In fact, it is wrong. If the main
> > > thread is already died, we can only use SIGEV_THREAD_ID signals, because
> > > otherwise good_sigevent() returns ->group_leader.
> >
> > Care to explain here please, I'm not following you.
>
> My apologies, I was unclear.
>
> This check is racy, the condition could be changed right after the check.
>
> It is unneeded, it is ok to do send_sigqueue(tsk) if if that task is already
> dead. (we hold the reference to task_struct).
>
> Now suppose that the main thread (->group_leader) already exited. This is
> normal, the thread group is still alive, it should be ok to send a signal to
> it via send_group_sigqueue(). But we can't: without SIGEV_THREAD_ID in
> ->sigev_notify good_event() returns ->group_leader, and it has PF_EXITING.
Thanks, I understand the problem now. I will fix this.
>
> Yes, kernel/posix-timers.c needs a cleanup too. But please note that it does
> this check for another reason (according to the comment). This reason is not
> valid now, the callsite for exit_itimers() was moved from __exit_signal() to
> do_exit().
>
> > > > + if (iocb->ki_notify.notify != SIGEV_NONE) {
> > > > + ret = aio_send_signal(&iocb->ki_notify);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* If signal generation failed, release the sigqueue */
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + sigqueue_free(iocb->ki_notify.sigq);
> > >
> > > We should not use sigqueue_free() here. It takes current->sighand->siglock
> > > to remove sigqueue from "struct sigpending". But current is just a "random"
> > > process here.
> > >
> > > Yes, if I understand this patch correctly, it is not possible that this
> > > sigqueue is pending, but still this is bad imho.
> >
> > Yes, in fact the sigqueue is used for a single signal delivery and then
> > free. In fact I could have used directly __sigqueue_free() instead here
> > except for the fact that it's private to signal.c and I'm reluctant
> > to export it to other subsystems.
>
> I personally think it is better to export __sigqueue_free() even if sigqueue_free()
> happens to work. It is to fragile imho to reference current->sighand. At least
> we need a fat comment.
OK.
>
> > > > static void __sigqueue_free(struct sigqueue *q)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC)
> > > > + if (q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC && q->info.si_code != SI_ASYNCIO)
> > > > return;
> > >
> > > Oh, this is not nice. Could we change send_sigqueue/send_group_sigqueue
> > > instead ?
> >
> > Yep, that's the other solution.
> >
> > >
> > > - BUG_ON(!(q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC));
> > > + BUG_ON(!(q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC) && q->info.si_code != SI_ASYNCIO);
> > >
> > > This way aio can use __sigqueue_alloc/__sigqueue_free directly and forget
> > > about SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC.
> >
> > Well, I don't think it's cleaner. The aio error path calls sigqueue_free()
> > directly whereas in case of success sigqueue_free() is called from the signal
> > delivery path.
>
> Hmm... now I don't understand you. Of course, the aio error path should use
> __sigqueue_free() if we don't use SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC (and imho we should not).
>
> And the signal delivery path uses __sigqueue_free() too.
>
> ?
>
> > > I'd suggest to not use this interface. Just use group_send_sig_info() or
> > > specific_send_sig_info(). Yes, this way we will do GFP_ATOMIC allocation
> > > of sigqueue in interrupt context, but is this so bad in this case?
> >
> > Well, the thihere is that in the past we used group_send_sig_info()
> > and specific_send_sig_info() for notification but Zach Brown raised
> > the question about reliable signal delivery. IOW an aio submission
> > should not succeed if signal delivery is going to fail. Hence the
> > use of the preallocated sigqueue.
>
> Ok, I see, thanks.
>
> Oleg.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
