lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH - take 2] knfsd: nfsd: Handle ERESTARTSYS from syscalls.
On Wednesday June 18, jlayton@redhat.com wrote:
>
> No objection to the patch, but what signal was being sent to nfsd when
> you saw this? If it's anything but a SIGKILL, then I wonder if we have
> a race that we need to deal with. My understanding is that we have nfsd
> flip between 2 sigmasks to prevent anything but a SIGKILL from being
> delivered while we're handling the local filesystem operation.

SuSE /etc/init.d/nfsserver does

killproc -n -KILL nfsd

so it looks like a SIGKILL.


>
> From nfsd():
>
> ----------[snip]-----------
> sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &shutdown_mask, NULL);
>
> /*
> * Find a socket with data available and call its
> * recvfrom routine.
> */
> while ((err = svc_recv(rqstp, 60*60*HZ)) == -EAGAIN)
> ;
> if (err < 0)
> break;
> update_thread_usage(atomic_read(&nfsd_busy));
> atomic_inc(&nfsd_busy);
>
> /* Lock the export hash tables for reading. */
> exp_readlock();
>
> /* Process request with signals blocked. */
> sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &allowed_mask, NULL);
>
> svc_process(rqstp);
>
> ----------[snip]-----------
>
> What happens if this catches a SIGINT after the err<0 check, but before
> the mask is set to allowed_mask? Does svc_process() then get called with
> a signal pending?

Yes, I suspect it does.

I wonder why we have all this mucking about this signal masks anyway.
Anyone have any ideas about what it actually achieves?

NeilBrown


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-19 04:33    [W:0.106 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site