Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 18:48:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@kernel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <1473818156.20126.1589410086731.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200513171047.04c2c10e@gandalf.local.home>
References: <20200505131602.633487962@linutronix.de> <20200505134058.560059744@linutronix.de> <1970736614.19996.1589403401588.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200513171047.04c2c10e@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 05/36] x86/entry: Flip _TIF_SIGPENDING and
 _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME handling
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: x86/entry: Flip _TIF_SIGPENDING and _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME handling
Thread-Index: +oxW4+ld0+7v3FOGlyEwJV7EJeY6WQ==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

----- On May 13, 2020, at 5:10 PM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2020 16:56:41 -0400 (EDT)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> 
>> ----- On May 5, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
>> 
>> > Make sure task_work runs before any kind of userspace -- very much
>> > including signals -- is invoked.
>> 
>> What is missing from this patch description is: _why_ is this deemed
>> useful ?
>> 
>> Also, color me confused: is "do_signal()" actually running any user-space,
>> or just setting up the user-space stack for eventual return to signal handler ?
>> 
>> Also, it might be OK, but we're changing the order of two things which
>> have effects on each other: restartable sequences abort fixup for preemption
>> and do_signal(), which also have effects on rseq abort.
>> 
>> Because those two will cause the abort to trigger, I suspect changing
>> the order might be OK, but we really need to think this through.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Mathieu
>> 
>> > 
>> > Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> > ---
>> > arch/x86/entry/common.c |    8 ++++----
>> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> > @@ -156,16 +156,16 @@ static void exit_to_usermode_loop(struct
>> > 		if (cached_flags & _TIF_PATCH_PENDING)
>> > 			klp_update_patch_state(current);
>> > 
>> > -		/* deal with pending signal delivery */
>> > -		if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>> > -			do_signal(regs);
>> > -
>> > 		if (cached_flags & _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME) {
>> > 			clear_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
>> > 			tracehook_notify_resume(regs);
>> > 			rseq_handle_notify_resume(NULL, regs);
>> > 		}
>> > 
>> > +		/* deal with pending signal delivery */
>> > +		if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>> > +			do_signal(regs);
> 
> Looking deeper into this, it appears that do_signal() can freeze or kill the
> task.
> 
> That is, it wont go back to user space here, but simply schedule out (being
> traced) or even exit (killed).
> 
> Before the resume hooks would never be called in such cases, and now they
> are.

Regarding swapping order of tracehook vs do_signal: Is the task really resumed
if it gets frozen or killed ? What is this change trying to accomplish, why
is it needed in the first place ?

Regarding swapping order of rseq wrt do_signal: why is it needed, why, and has
this been tested ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
>> > +
>> > 		if (cached_flags & _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY)
>> >  			fire_user_return_notifiers();

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com