Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220404111204.935357-1-elver@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220404111204.935357-1-elver@google.com>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 13:43:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdURqaCYDt5SJg0GLKqEs92JgUhHAhVa8B4RKextRH43aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Deliver SIGTRAP on perf event asynchronously if blocked
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:30 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> With SIGTRAP on perf events, we have encountered termination of
> processes due to user space attempting to block delivery of SIGTRAP.
> Consider this case:
>
>     <set up SIGTRAP on a perf event>
>     ...
>     sigset_t s;
>     sigemptyset(&s);
>     sigaddset(&s, SIGTRAP | <and others>);
>     sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &s, ...);
>     ...
>     <perf event triggers>
>
> When the perf event triggers, while SIGTRAP is blocked, force_sig_perf()
> will force the signal, but revert back to the default handler, thus
> terminating the task.
>
> This makes sense for error conditions, but not so much for explicitly
> requested monitoring. However, the expectation is still that signals
> generated by perf events are synchronous, which will no longer be the
> case if the signal is blocked and delivered later.
>
> To give user space the ability to clearly distinguish synchronous from
> asynchronous signals, introduce siginfo_t::si_perf_flags and
> TRAP_PERF_FLAG_ASYNC (opted for flags in case more binary information is
> required in future).
>
> The resolution to the problem is then to (a) no longer force the signal
> (avoiding the terminations), but (b) tell user space via si_perf_flags
> if the signal was synchronous or not, so that such signals can be
> handled differently (e.g. let user space decide to ignore or consider
> the data imprecise).
>
> The alternative of making the kernel ignore SIGTRAP on perf events if
> the signal is blocked may work for some usecases, but likely causes
> issues in others that then have to revert back to interception of
> sigprocmask() (which we want to avoid). [ A concrete example: when using
> breakpoint perf events to track data-flow, in a region of code where
> signals are blocked, data-flow can no longer be tracked accurately.
> When a relevant asynchronous signal is received after unblocking the
> signal, the data-flow tracking logic needs to know its state is
> imprecise. ]
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yjmn%2FkVblV3TdoAq@elver.google.com/
> Fixes: 97ba62b27867 ("perf: Add support for SIGTRAP on perf events")
> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>

>  arch/m68k/kernel/signal.c          |  1 +

Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds