On Thu, Oct 01 2020 at 08:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
> This adds TIF_TASKWORK for x86, which if set, will return true on
> checking for pending signals. That in turn causes tasks to restart the
> system call, which will run the added task_work.

Huch? The syscall restart does not cause the task work to run.

> If TIF_TASKWORK is available, we'll use that for notification when
> TWA_SIGNAL is specified.  If it isn't available, the existing
> TIF_SIGPENDING path is used.

Bah. Yet another TIF flag just because.

> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -1767,7 +1767,7 @@ static int io_req_task_work_add(struct io_kiocb *req, 
> struct callback_head *cb,
>               notify = TWA_SIGNAL;
>  
>       ret = task_work_add(tsk, cb, notify);
> -     if (!ret)
> +     if (!ret && !notify)

!notify assumes that TWA_RESUME == 0. Fun to debug if that ever changes.

>               wake_up_process(tsk);
> --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ int
>  task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, int 
> notify)
>  {
>       struct callback_head *head;
> -     unsigned long flags;
>  
>       do {
>               head = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
> @@ -41,7 +40,10 @@ task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct 
> callback_head *work, int notify)
>       case TWA_RESUME:
>               set_notify_resume(task);
>               break;
> -     case TWA_SIGNAL:
> +     case TWA_SIGNAL: {
> +#ifndef TIF_TASKWORK
> +             unsigned long flags;
> +
>               /*
>                * Only grab the sighand lock if we don't already have some
>                * task_work pending. This pairs with the smp_store_mb()
> @@ -53,7 +55,12 @@ task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct 
> callback_head *work, int notify)
>                       signal_wake_up(task, 0);
>                       unlock_task_sighand(task, &flags);
>               }
> +#else
> +             set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_TASKWORK);
> +             wake_up_process(task);
> +#endif

This is really a hack. TWA_SIGNAL is a misnomer with the new
functionality and combined with the above

         if (!ret && !notify)
                wake_up_process(tsk);

there is not really a big difference between TWA_RESUME and TWA_SIGNAL
anymore. Just the delivery mode and the syscall restart magic.

>  static unsigned long exit_to_user_mode_loop(struct pt_regs *regs,
>                                           unsigned long ti_work)
>  {
> +     bool restart_sys = false;
> +
>       /*
>        * Before returning to user space ensure that all pending work
>        * items have been completed.
> @@ -157,8 +159,13 @@ static unsigned long exit_to_user_mode_loop(struct 
> pt_regs *regs,
>               if (ti_work & _TIF_PATCH_PENDING)
>                       klp_update_patch_state(current);
>  
> +             if (ti_work & _TIF_TASKWORK) {
> +                     task_work_run();
> +                     restart_sys = true;
> +             }
> +
>               if (ti_work & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
> -                     arch_do_signal(regs);
> +                     restart_sys |= !arch_do_signal(regs);
>  
>               if (ti_work & _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME) {
>                       clear_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
> @@ -178,6 +185,9 @@ static unsigned long exit_to_user_mode_loop(struct 
> pt_regs *regs,
>               ti_work = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags);
>       }
>  
> +     if (restart_sys)
> +             arch_restart_syscall(regs);
> +

How is that supposed to work?

Assume that both TIF_TASKWORK and TIF_SIGPENDING are set, i.e. after
running task work and requesting syscall restart there is an actual
signal to be delivered.

This needs a lot more thoughts.

Thanks,

        tglx


Reply via email to