Re: [PATCH 18/20] signal: Add calculate_sigpending()

[Eric W. Biederman]

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 07/23, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> @@ -1988,6 +1988,7 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>>  					  &p->signal->thread_head);
>>  		}
>>  		attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PID);
>> +		calculate_sigpending(p);
>
> In theory this looks racy if !CLONE_SIGHAND, please see below
>
>> +void calculate_sigpending(struct task_struct *new)
>> +{
>> +	/* Have any signals or users of TIF_SIGPENDING been delayed
>> +	 * until after fork?
>> +	 */
>> +	bool pending = (new->jobctl & JOBCTL_PENDING_MASK) ||
>> +		PENDING(&new->pending, &new->blocked) ||
>> +		PENDING(&new->signal->shared_pending, &new->blocked) ||
>> +		freezing(new) || klp_patch_pending(new);
>
> note that we do not hold new->sighand->siglock, but this "new" task is already
> visible to find_task_by_vpid/etc; so a new signal can come right after
> this check,

Good point.  The localtion of the call to calculate_sigpending is wrong.

>> +	update_tsk_thread_flag(new, TIF_SIGPENDING, pending);
>
> and then update_tsk_thread_flag() can wrongly clear TIF_SIGPENDING.
>
> Easy to fix, but perhaps we can simply add recalc_sigpending() into
> schedule_tail() ? It already does more than just finish_task_switch/etc.
>
> This way we do not need the new helper (which btw can only be used by
> copy_process).

The problem I have with reusing recalc_sigpending is that it does not
set TIF_SIGPENDING if (freezing || klp_patch_pending).

There is obviously synergy between these two cases, I just have not
figured out how to take advantage of it yet.

> Note also that either way you can remove set_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)
> from ptrace_init_task().

Interesting.  Yes we can remove TIF_SIGPENDING from that case because
ptrace_init_task sets jobctl or queues a pending signal.  I like
that synergy.  I like not being able to miss setting TIF_SIGPENDING
during fork.

Eric