Thank george for your infos. First I was thinking that it was a bug in a
user-mode tool. Now you convinced me that it's a nanosleep kernel bug. I've
not looked in the user_mode usleed code but I've tested the bruce code with
nanosleep and got the same result. What still astonish me is that this
looks like a not so unprobable bug when running strace and should have been
detected before.
IT should be better to let sys_nanosleep in non-arch directory and use a
macro as you have proposed but this macro should include more than
do_signal :
#ifndef _sys_nanosleep
#define _sys_nanosleep \
current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; \
expire = schedule_timeout(expire);
#endif
and for x86 :
#define _sys_nanosleep \
{ \
struct pt_regs * regs = (struct pt_regs *) &rqtp; \
regs->eax = -EINTR; \
do { \
current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; \
} while((expire = schedule_timeout(expire)) &&
!do_signal(regs,NULL)); \
}
Is it bad to use directly the variable in a macro like this one. We could
still use something like _sys_nanosleep(current,rqtp) but it could be not
generic enough.
Christophe
Le jeu, 16 aoû 2001 02:59:51, george anzinger a écrit :
> The problem is that nano_sleep needs to continue sleeping if it wakes up
> on a signal which is not delivered to the task. This happens when
> "strace" or "ptrace" cause otherwise blocked signals to be delivered.
> Do_signal() returns 0 if it does not deliver a signal, a 1 if it does so
> I propose the following changes to nano_sleep:
>
> asmlinkage long sys_nanosleep(struct timespec *rqtp, struct timespec
> *rmtp)
> {
> struct timespec t;
> unsigned long expire;
> + struct pt_regs * regs = (struct pt_regs *) &rqtp;
>
> if(copy_from_user(&t, rqtp, sizeof(struct timespec)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> if (t.tv_nsec >= 1000000000L || t.tv_nsec < 0 || t.tv_sec < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
>
>
> if (t.tv_sec == 0 && t.tv_nsec <= 2000000L &&
> current->policy != SCHED_OTHER)
> {
> /*
> * Short delay requests up to 2 ms will be handled with
> * high precision by a busy wait for all real-time
> processes.
> *
> * Its important on SMP not to do this holding locks.
> */
> I udelay((t.tv_nsec + 999) / 1000);
> return 0;
> }
>
> expire = timespec_to_jiffies(&t) + (t.tv_sec || t.tv_nsec);
>
> - current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> - expire = schedule_timeout(expire);
> + regs->eax = -EINTR;
> + do {
> + current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> + } while((expire = schedule_timeout(expire)) &&
> !do_signal(regs,NULL));
>
> if (expire) {
> if (rmtp) {
> jiffies_to_timespec(expire, &t);
> if (copy_to_user(rmtp, &t, sizeof(struct
> timespec)))
> return -EFAULT;
> }
> return -EINTR;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> BUT, it turns out that do_signal() is in the "arch" code, and further
> that different arch's have different calling sequences (and, of course,
> pt_regs is different also). This is the ONLY place in the kernel where
> platform independent code needs to call do_signal() :( There does not
> seem to be a clean answer for this issue. I suppose we could put
> something like this in timer.c:
>
> #ifndef _do_signal
> #define _do_signal(a,b) 1
> #endif
>
> and then leave it to the platform code to define a uniform
> _do_signal(a,b) interface. This way each platform will work as it does
> now and better once they define the macro. If this is the path to take,
> what should the parameters "a" & "b" be? We need to cover all platforms
> needs.
>
> Another way to solve this issue is to move nano_sleep into the "arch"
> signal.c file, but then each would have to change and things would be
> broken (i.e. nano_sleep would not work) until the platform made the
> move. I suppose the current nano_sleep could stay in the kernel and
> each platform could implement one in their area with a different name.
> When all were done, the current code could be deleted.
>
> How should this be approached?
>
> George
>
>
> george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > george anzinger wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Janson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <20010814092849.E13892@pc8.lineo.fr>,
> > > > christophe =?iso-8859-1?Q?barb=E9?= <christophe.barbe@lineo.fr>
> wrote:
> > > > ..
> > > > >Le lun, 13 aoû 2001 10:29:32, Bruce Janson a écrit :
> > > > ..
> > > > >> The following program behaves incorrectly when traced:
> > > > ..
> > > > >Have you receive off-line answers?
> > > > ..
> > > >
> > > > No, though I did receive an offline reply from someone who appeared
> > > > to have misunderstood the post. In case it wasn't clear, the
> problem
> > > > is that the above program behaves differently when traced to how it
> > > > behaves when not traced. (I do realise that in general, under
> newer
> > > > Unices, when not ignored, a SIGCHLD signal may accompany the death
> of
> > > > a child.)
> > > >
> > > > >I guess that it's certainly more a strace issue and that it's
> perhaps
> > > > ..
> > > >
> > > > It's not clear to me whether it is a kernel, glibc or strace bug,
> but
> > > > it does appear to be a bug.
> > >
> > > I don't have the code for usleep() handy and the man page is not much
> > > help, but here goes:
> > >
> > > I think strace is using ptrace() which causes signals to be
> redirected
> > > to wake up the parent (strace in this case). In particular, blocked
> > > signals are no longer blocked. What this means is that a.) SIG CHILD
> is
> > > posted, b.) the signal, not being blocked, the child is wakened, c.)
> > > ptrace returns to the parent, d) the parent does what ever and tells
> the
> > > kernel (ptrace) to continue the child with the original mask, e.) the
> > > signal code returns 0 with out delivering the signal to the child.
> > > Looks good, right? Wrong! The wake up at (b) pulls the child out of
> > > the timer queue so when signal returns, the sleep (I assume nano
> sleep
> > > is actually used here) call returns with the remaining sleep time as
> a
> > > value.
> > >
> > > This is an issue for debugging also (same ptrace...). The fix is to
> fix
> > > nano_sleep to match the standard which says it should only return on
> a
> > > signal if the signal is delivered to the program (i.e. not on
> internal
> > > "do nothing" signals). Signal in the kernel returns 1 if it calls
> the
> > > task and 0 otherwise, thus nano sleep might be changed as follows:
> > >
> > > expire = timespec_to_jiffies(&t) + (t.tv_sec || t.tv_nsec);
> > >
> > > current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> > > - expire = schedule_timeout(expire);
> > > + while (expire = schedule_timeout(expire) && !signal());
> > Still not quite right. regs needs to be dummied up (see sys_sigpause)
> > and then:
> > + while (expire = schedule_timeout(expire) && !do_signal(regs,
> > NULL));
> > >
> > > if (expire) {
> > > if (rmtp) {
> > > jiffies_to_timespec(expire, &t);
> > > if (copy_to_user(rmtp, &t, sizeof(struct
> timespec)))
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > }
> > > return -EINTR;
> > > }
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > This code is in ../kernel/timer.c
> > >
> > > Note that this assumes that nano_sleep() underlies usleep(). If
> > > setitimer (via sleep() or otherwise) is used, the problem and fix is
> in
> > > the library. In that case, the code needs to notice that it was
> > > awakened but the alarm handler was not called. Still, with out the
> full
> > > spec on usleep() it is not clear what it should do.
> > >
> > > In any case, this is a bug in nano_sleep(), where the spec is clear
> on
> > > this point.
> > >
> > > George
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-- Christophe Barbé Software Engineer - christophe.barbe@lineo.fr Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group 42-46, rue Médéric - 92110 Clichy - France phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01 http://www.lineo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:15 EST