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;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux.dev>
References: <87fsx1vcr9.fsf@disp2133>
        <CAHk-=wj1z-NKxedgZvSS37iH=EKE47PkL=+BYccAUtsuB1sySQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <87czs4u0rm.fsf@disp2133>
        <CAHk-=wgs5+3MLjG_hsQcKdamOcTsJLsk47tV12FfD_0f2h47Rg@mail.gmail.com>
        <87mtr8sjvr.fsf@disp2133> <87a6n8simq.fsf@disp2133>
        <20210701164144.u2dod4g2obfj4kit@example.org>
Date:   Thu, 01 Jul 2021 15:05:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20210701164144.u2dod4g2obfj4kit@example.org> (Alexey Gladkov's
        message of "Thu, 1 Jul 2021 18:41:44 +0200")
Message-ID: <87o8blol4x.fsf@disp2133>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ucounts: Count rlimits in each user namespace
Precedence: bulk

Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:09:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>> 
>> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Why the "sigpending < LONG_MAX" test in that
>> >>> >
>> >>> >         if (override_rlimit || (sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <=
>> >>> > task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
>> >>> > thing?
>> >>>
>> >>> On second look that sigpending < LONG_MAX check is necessary.  When
>> >>> inc_rlimit_ucounts detects a problem it returns LONG_MAX.
>> >>
>> >> I saw that, but _without_ that test you'd be left with just that
>> >>
>> >>     sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
>> >>
>> >> and if task_rlimit() is LONG_MAX, then that means "no limits", so it is all ok.
>> >
>> > It means no limits locally.  The creator of your user namespace might
>> > have had a limit which you are also bound by.
>> >
>> > The other possibility is that inc_rlimits_ucounts caused a sigpending
>> > counter to overflow.  In which case we need to fail and run
>> > dec_rlimit_ucounts to keep the counter from staying overflowed.
>> >
>> > So I don't see a clever way to avoid the sigpending < LONG_MAX  test.
>> 
>> Hmm.  I take that back.  There is a simple clever way to satisfy all of
>> the tests.
>> 
>> - sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
>> + sigpending < task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
>> 
>> That would just need a small comment to explain the subtleties.  
>
> Is it because user.sigpending was atomic_t before this patch ?

Apologies I was wrong.

The replacement of "<=" with "<" is correct for the case where
"task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING) == LONG_MAX".

Unfortunately off by one for all other values of
"task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)".

It completely breaks things for the case where RLIMIT_SIGPENDING == 1,
where no signals are allowed to be queued.  Today allowing 1 queued
signal with a single task and a sender that does not send a second
signal until the first is consumed will work reliably.

That was just a brain fart on my part.

Eric