Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/15, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Ouch...  I think I see what you mean.  Let me see if I got it right:
> > timer->sigq is *not* freed by collect_signal(); it's done by
> > release_posix_timer() instead, under siglock.  Frankly, this
> >         /*
> >          * If it is queued it will be freed when dequeued,
> >          * like the "regular" sigqueue.
> >          */
> >         if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> >                 q = NULL;
> > in sigqueue_free() smells like it's asking for races.  Sigh...

This is protected by ->siglock, should be safe...

> So basically we want a different condition for "can we just go ahead and
> free that sucker", right?  Instead of "it's on the list, shan't free it"
> it ought to be something like "it's on the list or it is referenced by
> ksiginfo".  Locking will be interesting, though... ;-/

I guess yes... send_sigqueue() checks list_empty() too, probably nobody else.


> BTW, I really wonder how does that stuff interact with PTRACE_SETSIGINFO.
> What happens if tracer does PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, changes ->si_signo to
> something blocked, shoves it back with PTRACE_SETSIGINFO and does
> PTRACE_CONT with that new signal number?  Would we get two sigqueue instances
> with the same ->si_tid, one of them matching the timer->sigq and another
> - not?

Or the task sends a SI_TIMER info to itself via sys_rt_sigqueueinfo().

Afaics, nothing really bad can happen, I mean the kernel should not
crash or something like this. do_schedule_next_timer() can be fooled,
but at least lock_timer() can only succeed if this process actually
has a timer with the same timer_id. This sigqueue != timer->sigq, but
I think this doesn't matter, posix_timer_event() will use timer->sigq
anyway.

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/