The patch titled
Subject: exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
exec-dont-force_sigsegv-processes-with-a-pending-fatal-signal.patch
This patch was dropped because an alternative patch was merged
------------------------------------------------------
From: Ivan Delalande <colona@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal
We were seeing unexplained segfaults in coreutils processes and other
basic utilities on systems with print-fatal-signals enabled:
[ 311.001986] potentially unexpected fatal signal 11.
[ 311.001993] CPU: 3 PID: 4565 Comm: tail Tainted: P O 4.9.100.Ar-8497547.eostrunkkernel49 #1
[ 311.001995] task: ffff88021431b400 task.stack: ffffc90004cec000
[ 311.001997] RIP: 0023:[<00000000f7722c09>] [<00000000f7722c09>] 0xf7722c09
[ 311.002003] RSP: 002b:00000000ffcc8aa4 EFLAGS: 00000296
[ 311.002004] RAX: fffffffffffffff2 RBX: 0000000057efc530 RCX: 0000000057efdb68
[ 311.002006] RDX: 0000000057effb60 RSI: 0000000057efdb68 RDI: 00000000f768f000
[ 311.002007] RBP: 0000000057efc530 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
[ 311.002008] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
[ 311.002009] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
[ 311.002011] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88021e980000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 311.002013] CS: 0010 DS: 002b ES: 002b CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 311.002014] CR2: 00000000f77bf097 CR3: 0000000150f6f000 CR4: 00000000000406f0
We tracked these crashes down to binfmt_elf failing to load segments for
ld.so inside the kernel. Digging further, the actual problem seems to
occur when a process gets sigkilled while it is still being loaded by the
kernel. In our case when _do_page_fault goes for a retry it will return
early as it first checks for fatal_signal_pending(), so load_elf_interp
also returns with error and as a result search_binary_handler will
force_sigsegv() which is pretty confusing as nothing actually failed here.
Add a message when load_binary fails, add a check for fatal signals in
signal_delivered (avoiding a single check in force_sigsegv as other
architectures use it directly and may have different expectations).
Thanks to Dmitry Safonov and Oleg Nesterov for their comments and
suggestions.
See also https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/14/5
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190205025308.GA24455@visor
Fixes: 19d860a140be ("handle suicide on late failure exits in execve() in search_binary_handler()")
Signed-off-by: Ivan Delalande <colona@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/exec.c | 7 ++++++-
kernel/signal.c | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/exec.c~exec-dont-force_sigsegv-processes-with-a-pending-fatal-signal
+++ a/fs/exec.c
@@ -1660,7 +1660,12 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_b
if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {
/* we got to flush_old_exec() and failed after it */
read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
- force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
+ if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
+ if (print_fatal_signals)
+ pr_info("load_binary() failed: %d\n",
+ retval);
+ force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
+ }
return retval;
}
if (retval != -ENOEXEC || !bprm->file) {
--- a/kernel/signal.c~exec-dont-force_sigsegv-processes-with-a-pending-fatal-signal
+++ a/kernel/signal.c
@@ -2607,10 +2607,10 @@ static void signal_delivered(struct ksig
void signal_setup_done(int failed, struct ksignal *ksig, int stepping)
{
- if (failed)
- force_sigsegv(ksig->sig, current);
- else
+ if (!failed)
signal_delivered(ksig, stepping);
+ else if (!fatal_signal_pending(current))
+ force_sigsegv(ksig->sig, current);
}
/*
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from colona@xxxxxxxxxx are
