On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:47:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/19, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> >
> > case PTRACE_SETSIGMASK: {
> > sigset_t new_set;
> > @@ -962,6 +971,8 @@ int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long
> > request,
> > child->blocked = new_set;
> > spin_unlock_irq(&child->sighand->siglock);
> >
> > + clear_tsk_restore_sigmask(child);
> > +
>
> I am not sure I understand this change...
>
> I forgot everything I knew about criu, but iiuc PTRACE_SETSIGMASK is used
> at "restore" time, doesn't this mean that TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK/restore_sigmask
> can not be set?
PTRACE_SETSIGMASK isn't used on restore. On restore, criu generates
sigframe and calls sigreturn to restore registers, fpu state, sigmask
and resume a process. When the kernel constructs a signal frame, it
calls sigmask_to_save() to get a process signal mask. With this patch,
PTRACE_GETSIGMASK returns the same signal mask what is returned by
sigmask_to_save().
In CRIU, we don't need to set TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK, because all processes
are dumped when they are in user-space.
>
> IOW, could you please explain how PTRACE_SETSIGMASK should be used, and why
> it doesn't do something like
>
CRIU uses PTRACE_SETSIGMASK when it injects a parasite code into a
target process. In this case, we have to be sure that when the process
is resumed by PTRACE_CONT, it will not start handling signals and
executing signal handlers.
> if (test_tsk_restore_sigmask(child))
> child->saved_sigmask = new_set;
> else
> child->blocked = new_set;
>
> which looks symmetrical to PTRACE_GETSIGMASK?
If we set child->saved_sigmask, the child can start handling signals
which are not set in child->blocked.
>
> Oleg.
>
