This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] LXC: make sure fuse thread start to run before we do clone
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Gao feng <gaofeng at cn dot fujitsu dot com>, libvir-list at redhat dot com, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:16:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] LXC: make sure fuse thread start to run before we do clone
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1383830143-26049-1-git-send-email-gaofeng at cn dot fujitsu dot com> <20131108053008 dot GF16846 at redhat dot com> <20131108194226 dot GC24286 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20131113145305 dot GY32643 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:53:05PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:42:26PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 01:30:09PM +0800, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:15:43PM +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> > > > I met a problem that container blocked by seteuid/setegid
> > > > which is call in lxcContainerSetID on UP system and libvirt
> > > > compiled with --with-fuse=yes.
> > > >
> > > > I looked into the glibc's codes, and found setxid in glibc
> > > > calls futex() to wait for other threads to change their
> > > > setxid_futex to 0(see setxid_mark_thread in glibc).
> > > >
> > > > since the process created by clone system call will not
> > > > share the memory with the other threads and the context
> > > > of memory doesn't changed until we call execl.(COW)
> > > >
> > > > So if the process which created by clone is called before
> > > > fuse thread being stated, the new setxid_futex of fuse
> > > > thread will not be saw in this process, it will be blocked
> > > > forever.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe this problem should be fixed in glibc, but I send
> > > > this patch as a quick fix.
> > >
> > > Can you show a stack trace of the threads/processes deadlocking
> > I think this is a symptom of setxid not being async-signal-safe like
> > it's required to be. I'm not sure if we have a bug tracker entry for
> > that; if not, it should be added. But if clone() is being used except
> > in a fork-like manner, this is probably invalid application usage too.
> We are not using clone() in a manner that is strictly equivalent
> to fork(). Libvirt is using clone() to create Linux containers
> with new namespaces. eg we do
Understood. I still call this a fork-like manner since it's not
sharing VM or using CLONE_THREAD and using the default signal of
SIGCHLD. BTW is there a reason to prefer this usage over regular fork
followed by unshare()?
> IIUC, if a process is multi-threaded you should restrict yourself to
> use of async signal safe functions in between fork() and exec(). I
> assume this restriction applies to clone() and exec() pairings too.
> Libvirt is in fact violating rules about only using async signal safe
> functions between clone() and exec() in many places. So I think what
> we need to do is avoid starting any threads in the parent until after
> we've clone()'d to create the new child namespace.
Per the specification, setuid is AS-safe. However glibc fails to meet
this requirement (it's actually very hard to meet due to Linux
limitations in how the kernel manages uids/gids). So for now, avoiding
starting threads until after performing clone() is probably a better
solution than trying to eliminate calls to non-AS-safe functions.