On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:11:20 +0530
"Satyam Sharma" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/9/07, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:30:04 +1000
> > Herbert Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please cc networking patches to [email protected].
> > >
> > > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The following patch is a first stab at removing this need. It makes it
> > > > so that in tcp_recvmsg() we also check kthread_should_stop() at any
> > > > point where we currently check to see if the task was signalled. If
> > > > that returns true, then it acts as if it were signalled and returns to
> > > > the calling function.
>
> I got bit by the same thing when I was implementing a kthread that sleeps
> on skb_recv_datagram() (=> wait_for_packet) with noblock = 0 over a netlink
> socket. I need to use the same SIGKILL hack before kthread_stop() to ensure
> the kthread does wake up *and* unblock from skb_recv_datagram() when the
> module is being unloaded. Searched hard, but just couldn't find a prettier
> solution (if someone knows, please let me know).
>
> > > This just doesn't seem to fit. Why should networking care about kthreads?
>
> I agree.
>
> > > Perhaps you can get kthread_stop to send a signal instead?
>
> Yes, why not embed a send_sig(SIGKILL) just before the wake_up_process()
> in kthread_stop() itself?
>
> Looking at some happily out-of-date comments in the kthread code, I can
> guess that at some point of time (perhaps very early drafts) Rusty actually
> *did* implement the whole kthread_stop() functionality using signals, but
> I suspect it might've been discarded and the kthread_stop_info approach
> used instead to protect from spurious signals from userspace. (?)
>
> So could we have signals in _addition_ to kthread_stop_info and change
> kthread_should_stop() to check for both:
>
> kthread_stop_info.k == current && signal_pending(current)
>
> If !kthread_should_stop() && signal_pending(current) => spurious signal,
> so just flush and discard (in the kthread).
>
> > The problem there is that we still have to make the kthread let signals
> > through. The nice thing about this approach is that we can make the
> > kthread ignore signals, but still allow it to break out of kernel_recvmsg
> > when a kthread_stop is done.
>
> Why is it wrong for kthreads to let signals through? We can ignore out
> all signals we're not interested in, and flush the spurious ones ...
> otherwise there really isn't much those kthreads can do that get blocked
> in such functions, is there?
>
> Satyam
Yes, after I wrote that I began to question that assumption too. I was
pretty much going on a statement by Christoph Hellwig on an earlier
patch that I did:
-----[snip]------
The right way to fix this is to stop sending signals at all and have
a kernel-internal way to get out of kernel_recvmsg. Uses of signals by
kernel thread generally are bugs.
-----[snip]------
Though this makes no sense to me. I don't see any reason why kthreads
can't use signals, and hacking support for breaking out of sleeping
functions seems redundant.
My latest patch for cifsd has it block all signals from userspace
and uses force_sig() instead of send_sig() when trying to stop the
thread. This seems to work pretty well and still insulates the thread
from userspace signals.
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
-
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]
