On 8/17/21 6:05 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/17/21 3:39 PM, Tony Battersby wrote: >> On 8/17/21 5:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> Another approach - don't allow TWA_SIGNAL task_work to get queued if >>> PF_SIGNALED has been set on the task. This is similar to how we reject >>> task_work_add() on process exit, and the callers must be able to handle >>> that already. >>> >>> Can you test this one on top of your 5.10-stable? >>> >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/coredump.c b/fs/coredump.c >>> index 07afb5ddb1c4..ca7c1ee44ada 100644 >>> --- a/fs/coredump.c >>> +++ b/fs/coredump.c >>> @@ -602,6 +602,14 @@ void do_coredump(const kernel_siginfo_t *siginfo) >>> .mm_flags = mm->flags, >>> }; >>> >>> + /* >>> + * task_work_add() will refuse to add work after PF_SIGNALED has >>> + * been set, ensure that we flush any pending TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL work >>> + * if any was queued before that. >>> + */ >>> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)) >>> + tracehook_notify_signal(); >>> + >>> audit_core_dumps(siginfo->si_signo); >>> >>> binfmt = mm->binfmt; >>> diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c >>> index 1698fbe6f0e1..1ab28904adc4 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/task_work.c >>> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c >>> @@ -41,6 +41,12 @@ int task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, >>> head = READ_ONCE(task->task_works); >>> if (unlikely(head == &work_exited)) >>> return -ESRCH; >>> + /* >>> + * TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL notifications will interfere with >>> + * a core dump in progress, reject them. >>> + */ >>> + if ((task->flags & PF_SIGNALED) && notify == TWA_SIGNAL) >>> + return -ESRCH; >>> work->next = head; >>> } while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, head, work) != head); >>> >>> >> Doesn't compile. 5.10 doesn't have TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL. > Oh right... Here's one hacked up for the 5.10 TWA_SIGNAL setup. Totally > untested... > > diff --git a/fs/coredump.c b/fs/coredump.c > index c6acfc694f65..9e899ce67589 100644 > --- a/fs/coredump.c > +++ b/fs/coredump.c > @@ -603,6 +603,19 @@ void do_coredump(const kernel_siginfo_t *siginfo) > .mm_flags = mm->flags, > }; > > + /* > + * task_work_add() will refuse to add work after PF_SIGNALED has > + * been set, ensure that we flush any pending TWA_SIGNAL work > + * if any was queued before that. > + */ > + if (signal_pending(current) && (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_TASK_WORK)) { > + task_work_run(); > + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > + current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TASK_WORK; > + recalc_sigpending(); > + spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > + } > + > audit_core_dumps(siginfo->si_signo); > > binfmt = mm->binfmt; > diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c > index 8d6e1217c451..93b3f262eb4a 100644 > --- a/kernel/task_work.c > +++ b/kernel/task_work.c > @@ -39,6 +39,12 @@ int task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work, > head = READ_ONCE(task->task_works); > if (unlikely(head == &work_exited)) > return -ESRCH; > + /* > + * TWA_SIGNAL notifications will interfere with > + * a core dump in progress, reject them. > + */ > + if ((task->flags & PF_SIGNALED) && notify == TWA_SIGNAL) > + return -ESRCH; > work->next = head; > } while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, head, work) != head); > > Tested with 5.10.59 + backport 06af8679449d + the patch above. That fixes it for me. I tested a couple of variations to make sure. Thanks! Tested-by: Tony Battersby <tonyb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>