On 10/22, Enke Chen wrote:
>
> As the coredump of a process may take time, in certain time-sensitive
> applications it is necessary for a parent process (e.g., a process
> manager) to be notified of a child's imminent death before the coredump
> so that the parent process can act sooner, such as re-spawning an
> application process, or initiating a control-plane fail-over.
Personally I still do not like this feature, but I won't argue.
> --- a/fs/coredump.c
> +++ b/fs/coredump.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ void do_coredump(const kernel_siginfo_t *siginfo)
> struct cred *cred;
> int retval = 0;
> int ispipe;
> + bool notify;
> struct files_struct *displaced;
> /* require nonrelative corefile path and be extra careful */
> bool need_suid_safe = false;
> @@ -590,6 +591,15 @@ void do_coredump(const kernel_siginfo_t *siginfo)
> if (retval < 0)
> goto fail_creds;
>
> + /*
> + * Send the pre-coredump signal to the parent if requested.
> + */
> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + notify = do_notify_parent_predump(current);
> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + if (notify)
> + cond_resched();
Hmm. I do not understand why do we need cond_resched(). And even if we need it,
why we can't call it unconditionally?
I'd also suggest to move read_lock/unlock(tasklist) into do_notify_parent_predump()
and remove the "task_struct *tsk" argument, tsk is always current.
Yes, do_notify_parent() and do_notify_parent_cldstop() are called with tasklist_lock
held, but there are good reasons for that.
> +static inline int valid_predump_signal(int sig)
> +{
> + return (sig == SIGCHLD) || (sig == SIGUSR1) || (sig == SIGUSR2);
> +}
I still do not understand why do we need to restrict predump_signal.
PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG can only change the caller's ->predump_signal, so to me
even PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG(SIGKILL) is fine.
And once again, SIGCHLD/SIGUSR do not queue, this means that PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG
is pointless if you have 2 or more children.
> +bool do_notify_parent_predump(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> + struct kernel_siginfo info;
> + struct task_struct *parent;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + pid_t pid;
> + int sig;
> +
> + parent = tsk->parent;
> + sighand = parent->sighand;
> + pid = task_tgid_vnr(tsk);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags);
> + sig = parent->signal->predump_signal;
> + if (!valid_predump_signal(sig)) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sighand->siglock, flags);
> + return false;
> + }
Why do we need to check parent->signal->predump_signal under ->siglock?
This complicates the code for no reason, afaics.
> + clear_siginfo(&info);
> + info.si_pid = pid;
> + info.si_signo = sig;
> + if (sig == SIGCHLD)
> + info.si_code = CLD_PREDUMP;
> +
> + __group_send_sig_info(sig, &info, parent);
> + __wake_up_parent(tsk, parent);
Why __wake_up_parent() ?
do_notify_parent() does this to wake up the parent sleeping in do_wait(), to
report the event. But predump_signal has nothing to do with wait().
Now. This version sends the signal to ->parent, not ->real_parent. OK, but this
means that real_parent won't be notified if its child is traced.
> + case PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG:
> + if (arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* 0 is valid for disabling the feature */
> + if (arg2 && !valid_predump_signal((int)arg2))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + me->signal->predump_signal = (int)arg2;
> + break;
Again, I do not understand why do we need valid_predump_signal(). But even
if we need it, I don't understand why should we check it twice. IOW, why
do_notify_parent_predump() can't simply check ->predump_signal != 0?
Whatever we do, PR_SET_PREDUMP_SIG should validate arg2 anyway. Who else can
change ->predump_signal after that?
> + case PR_GET_PREDUMP_SIG:
> + if (arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + error = put_user(me->signal->predump_signal,
> + (int __user *)arg2);
To me it would be better to simply return ->predump_signal, iow
error = me->signal->predump_signal;
break;
but I won't insist, this is subjective and cosmetic.
Oleg.
