Re: Preemption Signal Management
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Tue May 25 2021 - 20:40:19 EST
On 5/21/21 9:23 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> Andy pointed out that we need a mechanism to determine whether or
> notifications are preempted. He suggested we use EPOLLPRI to indicate
> whether or not notifications are preempted. My outstanding question is
> whether or not we need to be able to get insight of what caused the
> preemption, and to which notification.
> In the past, Christian has suggested just background polling
> notification IDs for validity, which is a fine mechanism to determine
> that preemption has occurred. We could raise EPOLLPRI whenever a
> notification has changed into the preempted state, but that would
> require an O(n) operations across all outstanding notifications to
> determine which one was preempted, and in addition, it doesn't give a
> lot of information as to why the preemption occurred (fatal signal,
> In order to try to break this into small parts, I suggest:
> 1. We make it so EPOLLPRI is raised (always) on preempted notifications
> 2. We allow the user to set a flag to "track" notifications. If they
> specify this flag, they can then run a "stronger" ioctl -- let's say
> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_STATUS, which, if the flag was specified upon
> receiving the notification will return the current state of the
> notification and if a signal preempted it, it will always do that.
> Alternatively (and this is my preference), we add another filter flag,
> like SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NOTIF_PREEMPT, which changes the behaviour
> 1. Raise EPOLLPRI on preempted notifications
> 2. All preemption notifications must be cleared via
This seems sensible, except I don't think "preempted" is the right word.
The state machine is pretty simple:
live -> signaled -> killed
(and we can go straight from live to killed, too.) So EPOLLPRI could be
signaled if any notification changes state, and a new ioctl could read
the list of notifications that have changed state.