Re: [PATCH] signal: don't always leave task frozen after ptrace_stop()

[Roman Gushchin]

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 06:01:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Roman,
> 
> Sorry, I can't agree with this patch. And even the changelog doesn't
> look right.
> 
> On 05/13, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > The ptrace_stop() function contains the cgroup_enter_frozen() call,
> > but no cgroup_leave_frozen(). When ptrace_stop() is called from the
> > do_jobctl_trap() path, it's correct, because corresponding
> > cgroup_leave_frozen() calls in get_signal() will guarantee that
> > the task won't leave the signal handler loop frozen.
> >
> > However, if ptrace_stop() is called from ptrace_signal() or
> > ptrace_notify(), there is no such guarantee, and the task may leave
> > with the frozen bit set.
> 
> ptrace_signal() looks fine in that the task can't return to user-mode,
> get_signal() will be called again exactly because ->frozen == 1 means
> TIF_SIGPENDING. So I an not surre I understand why ptrace_signal() does
> ptrace_stop(false) with your patch. But this is minor.
> 
> > It leads to the regression, reported by Alex Xu. Write system call
> > gets mistakenly interrupted by fake TIF_SIGPENDING, which is set
> > by recalc_sigpending_tsk() because of the set frozen bit.
> 
> IMHO, the real problem is not that syscall was interrupted. The problem
> is that a frozen task must never start the syscall.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Can't we add the unconditional leave_frozen() into ptrace_stop() for now ?
> 
> Sure, this is not what we want. Debugger can disturb CGRP_FROZEN.
> 
> But. The "may_remain_frozen" argument uglifies this code too much (imo) and
> at the same time it doesn't solve the problem above: CGRP_FROZEN can be cleared
> "for no reason".
> 
> Say, why ptrace_event_pid() should do leave_frozen(true) ? And if there is any
> reason, then why wait_for_vfork_done() can do leave_frozen(false) ?
> 
> Or syscall-exit path. It can't miss get_signal(), it doesn't need leave_frozen().
> 
> 
> In short, I believe that compared to the unconditional leave_frozen() in ptrace_stop()
> this patch buys almost nothing, but makes the code and the whole logic much uglier.
> 
> Oleg.
> 

Hi Oleg!

I agree that "may_remain_frozen" adds a lot of ugliness, so let's fix
the regression with the unconditional leave_frozen(true). The patch below.
Please, let me know if it's not what you meant.

The problem is that it makes the ptrace freezer kselftest to flap,
so it's good only as a temporarily solution. But it looks like we agree here.

Thank you!


--