Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer whenusing pipes in core_pattern (v3)

[Neil Horman]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:24:55AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/28, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > Allow for the kernel to wait for a core_pattern process to complete
> 
> (please change the subject to match)
> 
Fine.

> > One of the things core_pattern processes might do is interrogate the status of a
> > crashing process via its /proc/pid directory.  To ensure that that directory is
> > not removed prematurely, we wait for the process to exit prior to cleaning it
> > up.
> >
> > Since the addition of this feature makes it possible to block the reaping of a
> > crashed process (if the collecting process never exits), Also introduce a new
> > sysctl: core_pipe_limit.
> 
> Perhaps this sysctl should be added in a separate patch? This patch mixes
> differents things imho.
> 
No, I disagree. If we're going to have a sysctl, It should be added in this
patch.  I agree that since these processes run as root, we can have all sort of
bad things happen.  But I think theres an advantage to being able to limit the
damage that a core_pattern process can do if it never exits.   This is a problem
we can avoid easily, and I'd rather not introduce the possibility of waiting
(forever) on a process without the ability to mitigate the risks that incurrs.

> But in fact I don't really understand why do we need the new sysctl. Yes,
> if the collecting process never exits, the coredumping thread can't be reaped.
> But this process runs as root, it can do other bad things. And let's suppose
> it just does nothing, say sleeps forever, and do not read the data from pipe.
> In that case, regardless of any sysctls, ->core_dump() never finishes too.
> 
Not always true, in the event that the core file is smaller than the pipe size.
But regardless, if ->core_dump never returns due to the aforementioned
situation, the sysctl provides the ability to mitigate the damange that can do,
since the dump count is held while ->core_dump is called.

> > +fail_dropcount:
> > +	if (dump_count) {
> > +		while (core_pipe_limit && inode->i_pipe->readers)
> > +			pipe_wait(inode->i_pipe);
> 
> No, no, this is racy and wrong.
> 
> First, it is possible that it exits between ->readers != 0 check and
> pipe_wait(), we will sleep forever.
> 
Its my understanding that pipe_wait returns from any pipe event, including the
closing of a pipe, I would have thought that the above code would catch that,
although, as I type that, I can see how it wouldn't without a lock.

> Also, pipe_wait() should be called under pipe_lock(), I guess lockdep
> should complain if you test your patch ;)
> 
I did test it, and received no such lockdep warnings.

> I'd suggest you to make a simple helper,
> 
> 	static inline void xxx(struct file *file)
> 	{
> 		struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = file->...;
> 
> 		wait_event(pipe->wait, pipe->readers == 0);
> 	}
> 
> I believe we don't need pipe_lock().
> 
Ok, I like that, I'll repost tomorrow morning, after I get some sleep.
Thanks!
Neil

> Oleg.
> 
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/