+ fs-epoll-add-procfs-fdinfo-helper.patch added to -mm tree
Subsystems (2)
Review SYSCALL_DEFINE4(signalfd4, int, ufd, sig · line 308
Quoted 13 lines
struct
signalfd_ctx{(quoted diff) +3
-0+ seqcount_t cnt; sigset_t sigmask; };@@ -278,7 +302,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(signalfd4, int, ufd, sig return -EINVAL; } spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); + write_seqcount_begin(&ctx->cnt); ctx->sigmask = sigmask; + write_seqcount_end(&ctx->cnt); spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
This doesn't look right.
The problem is, the current locking is broken, ->siglock can not serialize ->sigmask changes. Just suppose the the child inherits sigfd from parent and they both do sys_signalfd4() at the same time.
Nothing really bad can happen, that is why nobody bothers to fix this. But this patch makes the thing worse, write_seqcount_begin() must be serialized correctly.
Oleg.
Quoted 9 lines · Oleg Nesterov
This doesn't look right.
The problem is, the current locking is broken, ->siglock can not serialize ->sigmask changes. Just suppose the the child inherits sigfd from parent and they both do
sys_signalfd4()at the same time.Nothing really bad can happen, that is why nobody bothers to fix this. But this patch makes the thing worse,
write_seqcount_begin()must be serialized correctly.
Thanks a lot, Oleg! I'll update.
Quoted 7 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
Quoted 6 lines · Oleg Nesterov
This doesn't look right.
The problem is, the current locking is broken, ->siglock can not serialize ->sigmask changes. Just suppose the the child inherits sigfd from parent and they both do
sys_signalfd4()at the same time.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Nothing really bad can happen, that is why nobody bothers to fix this. But this patch makes the thing worse,
write_seqcount_begin()must be serialized correctly.Thanks a lot, Oleg! I'll update.
Something like below?
---
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
Subject: fdinfo: Show sigmask for signalfd fd v3
--- fs/proc/array.c | 2 +- fs/signalfd.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/proc_fs.h | 3 +++ 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
fs/proc/array.c +1 -1
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seqseq_putc (m,'\n' ); } -static void render_sigset_t (struct seq_file *m,const char *header, +void render_sigset_t (struct seq_file *m,const char *header,sigset_t *set) {int i;
fs/signalfd.c +24 -0
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@#include <linux/anon_inodes.h> #include <linux/signalfd.h> #include <linux/syscalls.h> +#include <linux/proc_fs.h> void signalfd_cleanup (struct sighand_struct *sighand) {
@@ -46,6 +47,7 @@ void signalfd_cleanup(struct sighand_str }struct signalfd_ctx { +rwlock_t lock;sigset_t sigmask; };
@@ -227,7 +229,26 @@ static ssize_t signalfd_read(struct filereturn total ? total: ret; } +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static int signalfd_show_fdinfo (struct seq_file *m,struct file *f) +{ +struct signalfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data; +sigset_t sigmask; + +read_lock (&ctx->lock); + sigmask = ctx->sigmask; +read_unlock (&ctx->lock); + +signotset (&sigmask); +render_sigset_t (m,"sigmask:\t" , &sigmask); +return 0 ; +} +#endif +static const struct file_operations signalfd_fops = { +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS + .show_fdinfo = signalfd_show_fdinfo, +#endif .release = signalfd_release, .poll = signalfd_poll, .read = signalfd_read,
@@ -259,6 +280,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(signalfd4, int, ufd, sigreturn -ENOMEM ; ctx->sigmask = sigmask; +rwlock_init (&ctx->lock);/* * When we call this, the initialization must be complete, since
@@ -278,7 +300,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(signalfd4, int, ufd, sigreturn -EINVAL ; }spin_lock_irq (¤t->sighand->siglock); +write_lock (&ctx->lock); ctx->sigmask = sigmask; +write_unlock (&ctx->lock);spin_unlock_irq (¤t->sighand->siglock);wake_up (¤t->sighand->signalfd_wqh);
include/linux/proc_fs.h +3 -0
@@ -290,4 +290,7 @@ static inline struct net *PDE_NET(struct return pde->parent->data; } +#include <linux/signal.h> + +void render_sigset_t (struct seq_file *m,const char *header,sigset_t *set);#endif /* _LINUX_PROC_FS_H */
fs/signalfd.c void signalfd_cleanup(struct sighand_str · line 51
Quoted 4 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
struct
signalfd_ctx{fs/signalfd.c +1
-0+rwlock_t lock;sigset_t sigmask;
Oh, I don't think.
rwlock_t is horrible in general, and what it can buy for signalfd? A plain spinlock would be better. Or seqlock_t.
Whatever you do, you are trying to introduce the lock which should serialize the access to ->sigmask correctly. In this case I think you should split this change into 2 patches. The first one should fix the locking, imo. sys_signalfd4() should not use ->siglock at all, and the users which take ->siglock to read ->sigmask should be updated.
Or,
fs/signalfd.c static ssize_t signalfd_read(struct file · line 240
Quoted 9 lines
fs/signalfd.c +9
-0+#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static int signalfd_show_fdinfo (struct seq_file *m,struct file *f) +{ +struct signalfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data; +sigset_t sigmask; + +read_lock (&ctx->lock); + sigmask = ctx->sigmask; +read_unlock (&ctx->lock);
Just read ctx->sigmask lockless. Do we really care if show_fdinfo() reads the value "in between" ?
Oleg.
Quoted 11 lines · Oleg Nesterov
fs/signalfd.c void signalfd_cleanup(struct sighand_str · line 51
Quoted 4 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
struct
signalfd_ctx{fs/signalfd.c +1
-0+rwlock_t lock;sigset_t sigmask;Oh, I don't think.
rwlock_tis horrible in general, and what it can buy for signalfd? A plain spinlock would be better. Orseqlock_t.
Quoted 6 lines
Whatever you do, you are trying to introduce the lock which should serialize the access to ->sigmask correctly. In this case I think you should split this change into 2 patches. The first one should fix the locking, imo.
sys_signalfd4()should not use ->siglock at all, and the users which take ->siglock to read ->sigmask should be updated.
I see
Quoted 15 lines
Or,
fs/signalfd.c static ssize_t signalfd_read(struct file · line 240
Quoted 9 lines
fs/signalfd.c +9
-0+#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static int signalfd_show_fdinfo (struct seq_file *m,struct file *f) +{ +struct signalfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data; +sigset_t sigmask; + +read_lock (&ctx->lock); + sigmask = ctx->sigmask; +read_unlock (&ctx->lock);Just read
ctx->sigmasklockless. Do we really care ifshow_fdinfo()reads the value "in between" ?
As from c/r patch I think we can read it lockless (since we do stop tasks anyway before doing checkpoint). So I would prefer to provide it without locks at all.
Quoted 4 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
As from c/r patch I think we can read it lockless (since we do stop tasks anyway before doing checkpoint). So I would prefer to provide it without locks at all.
Something like this. (Also I wonder where the documentation about fdinfo should go?)
---
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
Subject: fdinfo: Show sigmask for signalfd fd v3
The sigmask is read in lockless manner for a sake of code simplicity, thus if precise data needed here the tasks which refer to the signalfd should be stopped before read.
--- fs/proc/array.c | 2 +- fs/signalfd.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/proc_fs.h | 3 +++ 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
fs/proc/array.c +1 -1
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seqseq_putc (m,'\n' ); } -static void render_sigset_t (struct seq_file *m,const char *header, +void render_sigset_t (struct seq_file *m,const char *header,sigset_t *set) {int i;
fs/signalfd.c +18 -0
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@#include <linux/anon_inodes.h> #include <linux/signalfd.h> #include <linux/syscalls.h> +#include <linux/proc_fs.h> void signalfd_cleanup (struct sighand_struct *sighand) {
@@ -227,7 +228,24 @@ static ssize_t signalfd_read(struct filereturn total ? total: ret; } +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS +static int signalfd_show_fdinfo (struct seq_file *m,struct file *f) +{ +struct signalfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data; +sigset_t sigmask; + + sigmask = ctx->sigmask; +signotset (&sigmask); +render_sigset_t (m,"sigmask:\t" , &sigmask); + +return 0 ; +} +#endif +static const struct file_operations signalfd_fops = { +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS + .show_fdinfo = signalfd_show_fdinfo, +#endif .release = signalfd_release, .poll = signalfd_poll, .read = signalfd_read,
include/linux/proc_fs.h +3 -0
@@ -290,4 +290,7 @@ static inline struct net *PDE_NET(struct return pde->parent->data; } +#include <linux/signal.h> + +void render_sigset_t (struct seq_file *m,const char *header,sigset_t *set);#endif /* _LINUX_PROC_FS_H */
Quoted 7 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
Quoted 1 line · Cyrill Gorcunov
The sigmask is read in lockless manner for a sake of code simplicity, thus if precise data needed here the tasks which refer to the signalfd should be stopped before read.
Yes, I think this is fine, and this patch should replace fs-epoll-add-procfs-fdinfo-helper.patch in -mm.
fs/signalfd.c static ssize_t signalfd_read(struct file · line 248
Quoted 4 lines
static const struct
file_operationssignalfd_fops= {fs/signalfd.c +3
-0+#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS + .show_fdinfo = signalfd_show_fdinfo, +#endif
I am just curious and I can't find the patch which adds .show_fdinfo. Could you please send me link/patch offlist?
Oleg.
Quoted 11 lines · Oleg Nesterov
Quoted 7 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
Quoted 1 line · Cyrill Gorcunov
The sigmask is read in lockless manner for a sake of code simplicity, thus if precise data needed here the tasks which refer to the signalfd should be stopped before read.
Yes, I think this is fine, and this patch should replace fs-epoll-add-procfs-fdinfo-helper.patch in -mm.
No, epoll is different one, this patch is for fdinfo-show-sigmask-for-signalfd-fd.patch, I'll send the updates as new series.
Quoted 7 lines
fs/signalfd.c static ssize_t signalfd_read(struct file · line 248
Quoted 4 lines
static const struct
file_operationssignalfd_fops= {fs/signalfd.c +3
-0+#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS + .show_fdinfo = signalfd_show_fdinfo, +#endif I am just curious and I can't find the patch which adds .show_fdinfo. Could you please send me link/patch offlist?
It is titled as procfs-add-ability-to-plug-in-auxiliary-fdinfo-providers.patch Sure I'll resend you it offlist in a minute.
Cyrill
Damn, sorry for noise...
Quoted 5 lines · Oleg Nesterov
Quoted 3 lines · Cyrill Gorcunov
Quoted 1 line · Cyrill Gorcunov
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The sigmask is read in lockless manner for a sake of code simplicity, thus if precise data needed here the tasks which refer to the signalfd should be stopped before read.
Yes, I think this is fine, and this patch should replace fs-epoll-add-procfs-fdinfo-helper.patch in -mm.
I meant fdinfo-show-sigmask-for-signalfd-fd.patch
And the subject was wrong from the very beginning, sorry for confusion.
Oleg.