Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753971Ab0BOJAw (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:00:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:35091 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753029Ab0BOJAv (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:00:51 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1924 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:00:51 EST DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=LztJWQwmWegDgzbXjkYmntqM04xWzmJT63ajatb7IvvjQuK8pSnuh7vSSKDU3h2eAe Tj7MnNwCKXnnlVnSXYcHjc+CQ58ZY4mlaayrsC1xvbDPLdZrKrIUhIkgR4jCEBaoeDDE dThMLpQP/j9kpeqw0gXKLmBAzwO7IaKF7CbA4= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:57:43 +0800 From: =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Michael Neuling , Jouni Malinen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , anton@samba.org Subject: Re: 2.6.33-rc8 breaks UML with Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit Message-ID: <20100215085743.GF12076@hack.private> References: <20100214164023.GA2726@jm.kir.nu> <12468.1266215420@neuling.org> <20100215155821.7298.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100215155821.7298.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4974 Lines: 122 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 03:59:26PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> >> In message <20100214164023.GA2726@jm.kir.nu> you wrote: >> > It looks like the commit 803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921 >> > (fs/exec.c: restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit) broke my >> > user mode Linux setup by somehow preventing system setup from running >> > properly (or killing some processes that try to mount things, etc.). >> > This commit turned up as the reason based on git bisect and reverting it >> > fixes my UML test setup (Ubuntu 9.10 on both host and in UML and AMD64 >> > arch for both). I have no idea what exactly would be the main cause for >> > this issue, but this looks like a somewhat unfortunately timed >> > regression in 2.6.33-rc8. >> > >> > The failed run shows like this (with current linux-2.6.git): >> > >> > ... >> > EXT3-fs (ubda): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode >> > VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly on device 98:0. >> > IRQ 3/console-write: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > IRQ 2/console: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > mountall: mount /sys/kernel/debug [218] killed by KILL signal >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /sys/kernel/debug >> > mountall: mount /dev [219] killed by KILL signal >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /dev >> > mountall: mount /tmp [220] killed by KILL signal >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /tmp >> > mountall: mount /var/lock [222] killed by KILL signal >> > mountall: Filesystem could not be mounted: /var/lock >> > ... >> > >> > >> > With 803bf5ec reverted, UML comes up and the output looks like this: >> > >> > ... >> > EXT3-fs (ubda): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode >> > VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly on device 98:0. >> > IRQ 3/console-write: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > IRQ 2/console: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > IRQ 10/winch: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs >> > init: procps main process (226) terminated with status 255 >> > fsck from util-linux-ng 2.16 >> > ... >> >> Jouni, >> >> I can reproduce this now. >> >> We got the logic wrong in one of the cleanups and hence we aren't >> actually changing the stack reservation ever, when we intended on >> allocating up to 20 new pages. >> >> The: >> rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size); >> always chooses stack_size hence we end up not changing the stack at all. >> This seems to cause fatal problems on UML, but is obviously not what was >> intended for archs as well. >> >> The following works for me on PPC64 64k and 4k pages and UML on x86_64. >> >> Let me know if it fixes it for you also. >> >> Mikey >> >> >> exec/fs: fix initial stack reservation >> >> 803bf5ec259941936262d10ecc84511b76a20921 (fs/exec.c: restrict initial >> stack space expansion to rlimit) attempts to limit the initial stack to >> 20*PAGE_SIZE. Unfortunately, in also attempting ensure the stack is not >> reduced in size, we ended up not changing the stack at all. >> >> This caused a regression in UML resulting in most guest processes to be >> killed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling >> cc: >> >> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c >> index e95c692..e0e7b3c 100644 >> --- a/fs/exec.c >> +++ b/fs/exec.c >> @@ -637,15 +637,16 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm, >> * will align it up. >> */ >> rlim_stack = rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) & PAGE_MASK; >> - rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size); >> #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP >> if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack) >> - stack_base = vma->vm_start + rlim_stack; >> + /* Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */ >> + stack_base = vma->vm_start + max(rlim_stack,stack_size); >> else >> stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_expand; >> #else >> if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack) >> - stack_base = vma->vm_end - rlim_stack; >> + /* Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */ >> + stack_base = vma->vm_end - max(rlim_stack,stack_size); >> else >> stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_expand; >> #endif > >- rlim_stack = min(rlim_stack, stack_size); >+ /* Expand only to rlimit, making sure not to shrink it */ >+ rlim_stack = max(rlim_stack, stack_size); > >is better fix? > Odd. If this is the right fix, 'stack_size" will be able to exceed stack rlimit, then Michael's previous rlimit patch will be useless. Am I missing something? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/