Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>, linux@leemhuis.info,
        nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, mst@redhat.com,
        sgarzare@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com,
        brauner@kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20230602192254.GD555@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of
        "Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:22:55 +0200")
References: <20230601183232.8384-1-michael.christie@oracle.com>
        <20230602192254.GD555@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Date:   Fri, 02 Jun 2023 22:44:47 -0500
Message-ID: <87wn0l2or4.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD to fix freezer/ps
 regression
Precedence: bulk

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> Hi Mike,
>
> sorry, but somehow I can't understand this patch...
>
> I'll try to read it with a fresh head on Weekend, but for example,
>
> On 06/01, Mike Christie wrote:
>>
>>  static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
>>  {
>>  	struct vhost_task *vtsk = data;
>> -	int ret;
>> +	bool dead = false;
>> +
>> +	for (;;) {
>> +		bool did_work;
>> +
>> +		/* mb paired w/ vhost_task_stop */
>> +		if (test_bit(VHOST_TASK_FLAGS_STOP, &vtsk->flags))
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		if (!dead && signal_pending(current)) {
>> +			struct ksignal ksig;
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Calling get_signal will block in SIGSTOP,
>> +			 * or clear fatal_signal_pending, but remember
>> +			 * what was set.
>> +			 *
>> +			 * This thread won't actually exit until all
>> +			 * of the file descriptors are closed, and
>> +			 * the release function is called.
>> +			 */
>> +			dead = get_signal(&ksig);
>> +			if (dead)
>> +				clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
>
> this can't be right or I am totally confused.
>
> Another signal_wake_up() can come right after clear(SIGPENDING).

Technically yes.

However please not that prepare_signal does:
	if (signal->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)
		return false;

In general it is wrong to receive or attempt to process a signal
after task death has been decided.

Strictly speaking that doesn't cover de_thread, and coredumping
but still receiving any kind of signal at that point is rare
and generally wrong behavior.

Beyond that clearing TIF_SIGPENDING is just an optimization so
the thread can sleep in schedule and not spin.

> Again, I'll try to re-read this patch, but let me ask anyway...
>
> Do we have a plan B? I mean... iirc you have mentioned that you can
> change these code paths to do something like
>
> 	if (killed)
> 		tell_the_drivers_that_all_callbacks_will_fail();
>
>
> so that vhost_worker() can exit after get_signal() returns SIGKILL.
>
> Probably I misunderstood you, but it would be nice to avoid the changes
> in coredump/etc code just to add a temporary (iiuc!) fix.

One saving grace with the the vhost code is that you need to open
device nodes that normally have root-only permissions.

If we are willing to allow races in process shutdown to cause leaks I
think we can do something better, and put the burden of work on vhost
layer.

I will follow up with a patch doing that.

Eric