From: Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]>
The unix_dgram_recvmsg and unix_stream_recvmsg routines in
net/af_unix.c utilize mutex_lock(&u->readlock) calls in order to
serialize read operations of multiple threads on a single socket. This
implies that, if all n threads of a process block in an AF_UNIX recv
call trying to read data from the same socket, one of these threads
will be sleeping in state TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and all others in state
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Provided that a particular signal is supposed to
be handled by a signal handler defined by the process and that none of
this threads is blocking the signal, the complete_signal routine in
kernel/signal.c will select the 'first' such thread it happens to
encounter when deciding which thread to notify that a signal is
supposed to be handled and if this is one of the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
threads, the signal won't be handled until the one thread not blocking
on the u->readlock mutex is woken up because some data to process has
arrived (if this ever happens). The included patch fixes this by
changing mutex_lock to mutex_lock_interruptible and handling possible
error returns in the same way interruptions are handled by the actual
receive-code.
Signed-off-by: Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]>
---
diff -urp net-2.6/net/unix/af_unix.c net-2.6-patched//net/unix/af_unix.c
--- net-2.6/net/unix/af_unix.c 2011-02-16 22:19:43.338358559 +0000
+++ net-2.6-patched//net/unix/af_unix.c 2011-02-16 22:38:39.483543598 +0000
@@ -1724,7 +1724,11 @@ static int unix_dgram_recvmsg(struct kio
msg->msg_namelen = 0;
- mutex_lock(&u->readlock);
+ err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
+ if (err) {
+ err = sock_intr_errno(sock_rcvtimeo(sk, noblock));
+ goto out;
+ }
skb = skb_recv_datagram(sk, flags, noblock, &err);
if (!skb) {
@@ -1864,7 +1868,11 @@ static int unix_stream_recvmsg(struct ki
memset(&tmp_scm, 0, sizeof(tmp_scm));
}
- mutex_lock(&u->readlock);
+ err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock);
+ if (err) {
+ err = sock_intr_errno(timeo);
+ goto out;
+ }
do {
int chunk;
@@ -1895,11 +1903,12 @@ static int unix_stream_recvmsg(struct ki
timeo = unix_stream_data_wait(sk, timeo);
- if (signal_pending(current)) {
+ if (signal_pending(current)
+ || mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock)) {
err = sock_intr_errno(timeo);
goto out;
}
- mutex_lock(&u->readlock);
+
continue;
unlock:
unix_state_unlock(sk);
Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]> writes:
> The unix_dgram_recvmsg and unix_stream_recvmsg routines in
> net/af_unix.c utilize mutex_lock(&u->readlock) calls
This is IMHO a more sensible place for additional information.
I noticed this because the intended termination processing sequence of
some program which is used as part of a 'content-filtering solution'
for mobile devices (aka iPhones, iPads etc) stopped working the first
time I tested the program in its intended 'actual execution
context'. The program is supposed to listen for 'URL classifiction
requests' on a AF_UNIX SOCK_SEQPACKET socket, pass these to a
third-party library which does the actual classification job and then
send a reply containing a list of categories associated with the URL
in question. It uses multiple threads which basically work as follows:
1. initialize the library
2. unblock termination signals
3. block in read awaiting requests
4. block termination signals
5. process request and send reply
6. goto 2
Upon termination, each thread needs to execute the library
finalization routine before exiting. This is supposed to work with the
help of a signal handler for 'termination signals' calling siglongjmp
to get the particular thread executing it out of the processing
loop. Afterwards, this thread (with termination signals again blocked)
does the finalization call, executes a kill(getpid(), SIGTERM) and
exits via pthread_exit. The SIGTERM should then be picked up by
another thread of the process which will then perform the same
shutdown sequence and signal the next thread, until all threads of the
process have terminated properly. An example program whose structure
is basically identical to that of the actual application which
demonstrates the problem is available here:
http://mss-uk.mssgmbh.com/~rw/signal/signal-problem-app.c
I've since spent some more thoughts on this and came to the conclusion
that this should also affect independent process blocking on the same
AF_UNIX socket and this even in absence of any user-defined signal
handling. Another example program demonstrating this phenomenon can be
downloaded from
http://mss-uk.mssgmbh.com/~rw/signal/signal-problem-fork-simple.c
This basically creates an 'unkillable' process, meaning, one which is
even immune to a SIGKILL.
I've also tested that the issue still occurs with 2.6.38-rc5 and that
it is fixed by the proposed patch. The program itself has meanwhile
been moved to the computers which are actually used by the customers
of my employer. This move included patching all the kernels running on
these machines in the way I suggested.
From: Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:50:55 +0000
> From: Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]>
>
> The unix_dgram_recvmsg and unix_stream_recvmsg routines in
> net/af_unix.c utilize mutex_lock(&u->readlock) calls in order to
> serialize read operations of multiple threads on a single socket. This
> implies that, if all n threads of a process block in an AF_UNIX recv
> call trying to read data from the same socket, one of these threads
> will be sleeping in state TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and all others in state
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Provided that a particular signal is supposed to
> be handled by a signal handler defined by the process and that none of
> this threads is blocking the signal, the complete_signal routine in
> kernel/signal.c will select the 'first' such thread it happens to
> encounter when deciding which thread to notify that a signal is
> supposed to be handled and if this is one of the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> threads, the signal won't be handled until the one thread not blocking
> on the u->readlock mutex is woken up because some data to process has
> arrived (if this ever happens). The included patch fixes this by
> changing mutex_lock to mutex_lock_interruptible and handling possible
> error returns in the same way interruptions are handled by the actual
> receive-code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]>
Looks good, applied, thanks.