From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()" Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 23:41:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20180906214122.GG9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180902173224.30606-1-namit@vmware.com> <20180902173224.30606-2-namit@vmware.com> <20180906194003.GD4816@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180906195351.GB9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180906202547.GC9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nadav Amit Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Ingo Molnar , X86 ML , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , Dave Hansen , Jiri Kosina , Andy Lutomirski , Kees Cook , Dave Hansen List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 08:57:38PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:58:40PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > >>> With that CR3 trickery, we can rid ourselves of the text_mutex > >>> requirement, since concurrent text_poke is 'safe'. That would clean up > >>> the kgdb code quite a bit. > >> > >> I don’t know. I’m somewhat worried with multiple mechanisms potentially > >> changing the same code at the same time - and maybe ending up with some > >> mess. > > > > kgdb only pokes INT3, that should be pretty safe. > > Maybe I misunderstand your point. If you want me to get rid of text_mutex > completely, No, just the ugly things kgdb does with it.