[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fcntl: make F_GETOWN(EX) return 0 on dead owner task

On 2/8/21 3:31 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-02-04 at 01:17 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 12:35:42AM +0300, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
>>> AFAICS if pid is held only by 1) fowner refcount and by 2) single process
>>> (without threads, group and session for simplicity), on process exit we go
>>> through:
>>> do_exit
>>>   exit_notify
>>>     release_task
>>>       __exit_signal
>>>         __unhash_process
>>>           detach_pid
>>>             __change_pid
>>>               free_pid
>>>                 idr_remove
>>> So pid is removed from idr, and after that alloc_pid can reuse pid numbers
>>> even if old pid structure is still alive and is still held by fowner.
>> ...
>>> Hope this answers your question, Thanks!
>> Yeah, indeed, thanks! So the change is sane still I'm
>> a bit worried about backward compatibility, gimme some
>> time I'll try to refresh my memory first, in a couple
>> of days or weekend (though here are a number of experienced
>> developers CC'ed maybe they reply even faster).
> I always find it helpful to refer to the POSIX spec [1] for this sort of
> thing. In this case, it says:
> If fildes refers to a socket, get the process ID or process group ID
> specified to receive SIGURG signals when out-of-band data is available.
> Positive values shall indicate a process ID; negative values, other than
> -1, shall indicate a process group ID; the value zero shall indicate
> that no SIGURG signals are to be sent. If fildes does not refer to a
> socket, the results are unspecified.
> In the event that the PID is reused, the kernel won't send signals to
> the replacement task, correct?

Correct. Looks like only places to send signal to owner are send_sigio()
and send_sigurg() (at least nobody else dereferences fown->pid_type).
And in both places we lookup for task to send signal to with pid_task()
or do_each_pid_task() (similar to what I do in patch) and will not find
any task if pid was reused. Thus no signal would be sent.

> Assuming that's the case, then this patch
> looks fine to me too. I'll plan to pick it for linux-next later today,
> and we can hopefully get this into v5.12.
> [1]:

Thanks for finding it!

Best regards, Tikhomirov Pavel
Software Developer, Virtuozzo.

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 14:01    [W:0.143 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site