lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH - take 2] knfsd: nfsd: Handle ERESTARTSYS from syscalls.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:29:16 +1000
Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> 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?
>

HCH asked me the same question when I did the conversion to kthreads.
My interpretation (based on guesswork here) was that we wanted to
distinguish between SIGKILL and other allowed signals. A SIGKILL is
allowed to interrupt the underlying I/O, but other signals should not.

The question to answer here, I suppose, is whether masking a pending
signal is sufficient to make signal_pending() return false. If I'm
looking correctly then the answer should be "yes". So I don't think we
have a race here after all. I suspect that if SuSE used a different
signal here, that would prevent this from happening. For the record,
both RHEL and Fedora's init scripts use SIGINT for this.

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-19 12:41    [W:0.134 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site