Re: [PATCH 3/3] fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD to fix freezer/ps regression

From: michael . christie
Date: Mon May 29 2023 - 12:09:57 EST

On 5/29/23 6:19 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Looking forward I don't see not asking the worker threads to stop
>> for the coredump right now causing any problems in the future.
>> So I think we can use this to resolve the coredump issue I spotted.
> But we have almost the same problem with exec.
> Execing thread will wait for vhost_worker() while vhost_worker will wait for
> .release -> vhost_task_stop().

For this type of case, what is the goal or correct behavior in the end?

When get_signal returns true we can code things like you mention below and
clean up the task_struct. However, we now have a non-functioning vhost device
open and just sitting around taking up memory and it can't do any IO.

For this type of case, do we expect just not to crash/hang, or was this new
exec'd thread suppose to be able to use the vhost device?

I would normally say it probably wants to use the vhost device still. However,
I don't think this comes up so just not hanging might be ok. Before 6.4-rc1,
we ignored signals so it would have worked if we are concerned about a possible
regression if this was a common thing.

> And even O_CLOEXEC won't help, do_close_on_exec() is called after de_thread().
> Or suppose that vhost_worker's sub-thread forks a child with CLONE_FILES...

You mean the vhost_task's task/thread doing a function that does a copy_process
right? That type of thing is not needed. I can add a check in vhost_task_create
for this so new code doesn't try to do it. I don't think it will come up that some
code vhost is using will call kernel_thread/copy_process directly since those
calls are so rare and the functions are not exported to modules.

> If we want CLONE_THREAD, I think vhost_worker() should exit after get_signal()
> returns SIGKILL. Perhaps it should "disable" vhost_work_queue() somehow and
> flush the pending works on ->work_list before exit, I dunno. But imo it should
> not wait for the final fput().
> Oleg.