Hi, Olge:
>> probably ->predump_signal should be cleared on exec?
As I replied to Jann, will do.
Thanks. -- Enke
On 10/15/18 12:17 PM, Enke Chen wrote:
> Hi, Oleg:
>
> I missed some of your comments in my previous reply.
>
> On 10/15/18 5:05 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/12, Enke Chen wrote:
>>>
>>> For simplicity and consistency, this patch provides an implementation
>>> for signal-based fault notification prior to the coredump of a child
>>> process. A new prctl command, PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG, is defined that can
>>> be used by an application to express its interest and to specify the
>>> signal (SIGCHLD or SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2) for such a notification. A new
>>> signal code (si_code), CLD_PREDUMP, is also defined for SIGCHLD.
>>
>> To be honest, I can't say I like this new feature...
>>
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -696,6 +696,10 @@ struct task_struct {
>>> int exit_signal;
>>> /* The signal sent when the parent dies: */
>>> int pdeath_signal;
>>> +
>>> + /* The signal sent prior to a child's coredump: */
>>> + int predump_signal;
>>> +
>>
>> At least, I think predump_signal should live in signal_struct, not
>> task_struct.
>>
>> (pdeath_signal too, but it is too late to change (fix) this awkward API).
>>
>>> +static void do_notify_parent_predump(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> +{
>>> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>>> + struct task_struct *parent;
>>> + struct kernel_siginfo info;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + int sig;
>>> +
>>> + parent = tsk->real_parent;
>>
>> So, debuggere won't be notified, only real_parent...
>>
>>> + sig = parent->predump_signal;
>>
>> probably ->predump_signal should be cleared on exec?
>
>
> Is this not enough in "copy_process()"?
>
> @@ -1985,6 +1985,7 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct
> *copy_process(
> p->dirty_paused_when = 0;
>
> p->pdeath_signal = 0;
> + p->predump_signal = 0;
>
>>
>>> + /* Check again with tasklist_lock" locked by the caller */
>>> + if (!valid_predump_signal(sig))
>>> + return;
>>
>> I don't understand why we need valid_predump_signal() at all.
>
> Most of the signals have well-defined semantics, and would not be appropriate
> for this purpose. That is why it is limited to only SIGCHLD, SIGUSR1,
> SIGUSR2.
>
>>
>>> bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>>> {
>>> struct sighand_struct *sighand = current->sighand;
>>> @@ -2497,6 +2535,19 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>>> current->flags |= PF_SIGNALED;
>>>
>>> if (sig_kernel_coredump(signr)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Notify the parent prior to the coredump if the
>>> + * parent is interested in such a notificaiton.
>>> + */
>>> + int p_sig = current->real_parent->predump_signal;
>>> +
>>> + if (valid_predump_signal(p_sig)) {
>>> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>>> + do_notify_parent_predump(current);
>>> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>> + cond_resched();
>>
>> perhaps this should be called by do_coredump() after coredump_wait() kills
>> all the sub-threads?
>
> proc_coredump_connector(current) is located here, they should stay together.
>
> Thanks. -- Enke
>
>>
>>> +static int prctl_set_predump_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, pid_t pid,
>>> int sig)
>>> +{
>>> + struct task_struct *p;
>>> + int error;
>>> +
>>> + /* 0 is valid for disabling the feature */
>>> + if (sig && !valid_predump_signal(sig))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + /* For the current task, the common case */
>>> + if (pid == 0) {
>>> + tsk->predump_signal = sig;
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + error = -ESRCH;
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + p = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
>>> + if (p) {
>>> + if (!set_predump_signal_perm(p))
>>> + error = -EPERM;
>>> + else {
>>> + error = 0;
>>> + p->predump_signal = sig;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>> + return error;
>>> +}
>>
>> Why? I mean, why do we really want to support the pid != 0 case?
>>
>> Oleg.
>>
