Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:11:06 +0200 From: Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r215664 - in head/sys: compat/linux kern Message-ID: <20101122111105.GA2561@tops> In-Reply-To: <20101122093134.GU2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <201011220907.oAM970To084256@svn.freebsd.org> <20101122093134.GU2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On (22/11/2010 11:31), Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:07:00AM +0000, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Author: netchild > > Date: Mon Nov 22 09:06:59 2010 > > New Revision: 215664 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/215664 > > > > Log: > > By using the 32-bit Linux version of Sun's Java Development Kit 1.6 > > on FreeBSD (amd64), invocations of "javac" (or "java") eventually > > end with the output of "Killed" and exit code 137. > > > > This is caused by: > > 1. After calling exec() in multithreaded linux program threads are not > > destroyed and continue running. They get killed after program being > > executed finishes. > > > > 2. linux_exit_group doesn't return correct exit code when called not > > from group leader. Which happens regularly using sun jvm. > > > > The submitters fix this in a similar way to how NetBSD handles this. > > > > I took the PRs away from dchagin, who seems to be out of touch of > > this since a while (no response from him). > > > > The patches committed here are from [2], with some little modifications > > from me to the style. > > > > PR: 141439 [1], 144194 [2] > > Submitted by: Stefan Schmidt <stefan.schmidt@stadtbuch.de>, gk > > Reviewed by: rdivacky (in april 2010) > > MFC after: 5 days > > > > Modified: > > head/sys/compat/linux/linux_emul.c > > head/sys/compat/linux/linux_emul.h > > head/sys/compat/linux/linux_misc.c > > head/sys/kern/kern_exit.c > > > > Modified: head/sys/compat/linux/linux_emul.c > > ============================================================================== > > --- head/sys/compat/linux/linux_emul.c Mon Nov 22 09:04:29 2010 (r215663) > > +++ head/sys/compat/linux/linux_emul.c Mon Nov 22 09:06:59 2010 (r215664) > > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ void > > linux_proc_exit(void *arg __unused, struct proc *p) > > { > > struct linux_emuldata *em; > > - int error; > > + int error, shared_flags, shared_xstat; > > struct thread *td = FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC(p); > > int *child_clear_tid; > > struct proc *q, *nq; > > @@ -187,6 +187,8 @@ linux_proc_exit(void *arg __unused, stru > > } > > > > EMUL_SHARED_WLOCK(&emul_shared_lock); > > + shared_flags = em->shared->flags; > > + shared_xstat = em->shared->xstat; > > LIST_REMOVE(em, threads); > > > > em->shared->refs--; > > @@ -196,6 +198,12 @@ linux_proc_exit(void *arg __unused, stru > > } else > > EMUL_SHARED_WUNLOCK(&emul_shared_lock); > > > > + if ((shared_flags & EMUL_SHARED_HASXSTAT) != 0) { > > + PROC_LOCK(p); > > + p->p_xstat = shared_xstat; > > + PROC_UNLOCK(p); > > + } > Why is process lock taken there ? The assignment to u_short inside the > properly aligned structure is atomic on all supported architectures, and > the thread that should see side-effect of assignment is the same thread > that does assignment. > > > + > > if (child_clear_tid != NULL) { > > struct linux_sys_futex_args cup; > > int null = 0; > > @@ -257,6 +265,9 @@ linux_proc_exec(void *arg __unused, stru > > if (__predict_false(imgp->sysent == &elf_linux_sysvec > > && p->p_sysent != &elf_linux_sysvec)) > > linux_proc_init(FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC(p), p->p_pid, 0); > > + if (__predict_false(p->p_sysent == &elf_linux_sysvec)) > > + /* Kill threads regardless of imgp->sysent value */ > > + linux_kill_threads(FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC(p), SIGKILL); > This is better expressed by > if ((p->p_sysent->sv_flags & SV_ABI_MASK) == SV_ABI_LINUX) > > Regardless of this mostly cosmetic issue, this is racy. Other > linux thread in the same process might do an execve(3). > More, if execve(3) call fails, then you return into the process > that lacks all threads except the one that called execve(3). execve(3) races in linuxulator are known, and that's not the only case: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/142082 But fixing it is not easy, as you've noted in other email current hook mechanism is not good enough for it.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101122111105.GA2561>