diff mbox series

[07/16] signal: Wake up the designated parent

Message ID 20220518225355.784371-7-ebiederm@xmission.com
State New
Headers show
Series ptrace: cleanups and calling do_cldstop with only siglock | expand

Commit Message

Eric W. Biederman May 18, 2022, 10:53 p.m. UTC
Today if a process is ptraced only the ptracer will ever be woken up in
wait, if the parent is waiting with __WNOTHREAD.  Update the code
so that the real_parent can also be woken up with __WNOTHREAD even
when the code is ptraced.

Fixes: 75b95953a569 ("job control: Add @for_ptrace to do_notify_parent_cldstop()")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
---
 kernel/exit.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Eric W. Biederman June 6, 2022, 10:10 p.m. UTC | #1
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> On 05/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 05/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >
>> > I fail to understand this patch...
>> >
>> > On 05/18, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Today if a process is ptraced only the ptracer will ever be woken up in
>> > > wait
>> >
>> > and why is this wrong?
>> >
>> > > Fixes: 75b95953a569 ("job control: Add @for_ptrace to do_notify_parent_cldstop()")
>> >
>> > how does this change fix 75b95953a569?
>>
>> OK, I guess you mean the 2nd do_notify_parent_cldstop() in ptrace_stop(),
>> the problematic case is current->ptrace == T. Right?
>>
>> I dislike this patch anyway, but let me think more about it.
>
> OK, now that I understand the problem, the patch doesn't look bad to me,
> although I'd ask to make the changelog more clear.

I will see what I can do.

> After this change __wake_up_parent() can't accept any "parent" from
> p->parent thread group, but all callers look fine except
> ptrace_detach().

Having looked at it a little more I think the change was too
restrictive.  For the !ptrace_reparented case there are possibly
two threads of the parent process that wait_consider_task will
allow to wait even with __WNOTHREAD specified.  It is desirable
to wake them both up.

Which if I have had enough sleep reduces this patch to just:

diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index f072959fcab7..c8156366b722 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -1431,8 +1431,10 @@ static int child_wait_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode,
        if (!eligible_pid(wo, p))
                return 0;
 
-       if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wait->private != p->parent)
-               return 0;
+       if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) &&
+           (wait->private != p->parent) &&
+           (wait->private != p->real_parent))
+                       return 0;
 
        return default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
 }


I think that solves the issue without missing wake-ups without adding
any more.

For the same set of reasons it looks like the __wake_up_parent in
__ptrace_detach is just simply dead code.  I don't think there is a case
where when !ptrace_reparented the thread that is the real_parent can
sleep in do_wait when the thread that was calling ptrace could not.

That needs a very close look to confirm. 

Eric
Oleg Nesterov June 7, 2022, 3:26 p.m. UTC | #2
On 06/06, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Which if I have had enough sleep reduces this patch to just:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index f072959fcab7..c8156366b722 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -1431,8 +1431,10 @@ static int child_wait_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode,
>         if (!eligible_pid(wo, p))
>                 return 0;
>
> -       if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wait->private != p->parent)
> -               return 0;
> +       if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) &&
> +           (wait->private != p->parent) &&
> +           (wait->private != p->real_parent))
> +                       return 0;
>
>         return default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
>  }
>
>
> I think that solves the issue without missing wake-ups without adding
> any more.

Agreed, and looks much simpler.

> For the same set of reasons it looks like the __wake_up_parent in
> __ptrace_detach is just simply dead code.  I don't think there is a case
> where when !ptrace_reparented the thread that is the real_parent can
> sleep in do_wait when the thread that was calling ptrace could not.

Yes... this doesn't really differ from the case when one thread reaps
a natural child and another thread sleep in do_wait().

> That needs a very close look to confirm.

Yes.

Oleg.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index f072959fcab7..0e26f73c49ac 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -1421,26 +1421,35 @@  static int ptrace_do_wait(struct wait_opts *wo, struct task_struct *tsk)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+struct child_wait_info {
+	struct task_struct *p;
+	struct task_struct *parent;
+};
+
 static int child_wait_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode,
 				int sync, void *key)
 {
 	struct wait_opts *wo = container_of(wait, struct wait_opts,
 						child_wait);
-	struct task_struct *p = key;
+	struct child_wait_info *info = key;
 
-	if (!eligible_pid(wo, p))
+	if (!eligible_pid(wo, info->p))
 		return 0;
 
-	if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wait->private != p->parent)
-		return 0;
+	if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && (wait->private != info->parent))
+			return 0;
 
 	return default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
 }
 
 void __wake_up_parent(struct task_struct *p, struct task_struct *parent)
 {
+	struct child_wait_info info = {
+		.p = p,
+		.parent = parent,
+	};
 	__wake_up_sync_key(&parent->signal->wait_chldexit,
-			   TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, p);
+			   TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, &info);
 }
 
 static bool is_effectively_child(struct wait_opts *wo, bool ptrace,