From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <io-uring-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8B2C48BCD
for <io-uring@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 21:05:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B43E613EF
for <io-uring@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 21:05:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
id S229548AbhFIVHf (ORCPT <rfc822;io-uring@archiver.kernel.org>);
Wed, 9 Jun 2021 17:07:35 -0400
Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:46516 "EHLO
out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
with ESMTP id S229536AbhFIVHe (ORCPT
<rfc822;io-uring@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 9 Jun 2021 17:07:34 -0400
Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52])
by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
(Exim 4.93)
(envelope-from <ebiederm@xmission.com>)
id 1lr5ON-0049fj-1f; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 15:05:39 -0600
Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=email.xmission.com)
by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
(Exim 4.93)
(envelope-from <ebiederm@xmission.com>)
id 1lr5OL-000F8v-4H; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 15:05:38 -0600
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"Pavel Begunkov\>" <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
References: <192c9697e379bf084636a8213108be6c3b948d0b.camel@trillion01.com>
<9692dbb420eef43a9775f425cb8f6f33c9ba2db9.camel@trillion01.com>
<87h7i694ij.fsf_-_@disp2133>
<CAHk-=wjC7GmCHTkoz2_CkgSc_Cgy19qwSQgJGXz+v2f=KT3UOw@mail.gmail.com>
<198e912402486f66214146d4eabad8cb3f010a8e.camel@trillion01.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 16:05:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <198e912402486f66214146d4eabad8cb3f010a8e.camel@trillion01.com>
(Olivier Langlois's message of "Wed, 09 Jun 2021 17:02:05 -0400")
Message-ID: <87eeda7nqe.fsf@disp2133>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-XM-SPF: eid=1lr5OL-000F8v-4H;;;mid=<87eeda7nqe.fsf@disp2133>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral
X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/SZKsQtgDKCsReGzr60p+CHQwK8l82Kxw=
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] coredump: Do not interrupt dump for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com)
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <io-uring.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org
Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 13:33 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Now, the fact that we haven't cleared TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL for the first
>> signal is clearly the immediate cause of this, but at the same time I
>> really get the feeling that that coredump aborting code should always
>> had used fatal_signal_pending().
>
> I need clarify what does happen with the io_uring situation. If
> somehow, TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL wasn't cleared, I would get all the time a 0
> byte size core dump because do_coredump() does check if the dump is
> interrupted before writing a single byte.
>
> io_uring is quite a strange animal. AFAIK, the common pattern to use a
> wait_queue is to insert a task into it and then put that task to sleep
> until the waited event occur.
>
> io_uring place tasks into wait queues and then let the the task return
> to user space to do some other stuff (like core dumping). I would guess
> that it is the main reason for it using the task_work feature.
>
> So the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL does get set WHILE the core dump is written.
Did you mean?
So the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL does _not_ get set WHILE the core dump is written.
Eric