From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/module_64: Fix "expected nop" error on module re-patching
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:46:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230125164609.wvuarciciyoqa3tb@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPhsuW40jEiyp0ogsO6oH_frpFCmiioSHrMOKkwGcZ8_6w5dZA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:09:56PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > @@ -514,9 +515,18 @@ static int restore_r2(const char *name, u32 *instruction, struct module *me)
> > if (!instr_is_relative_link_branch(ppc_inst(*prev_insn)))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (*instruction != PPC_RAW_NOP()) {
> > + /*
> > + * For livepatch, the restore r2 instruction might have already been
> > + * written previously, if the referenced symbol is in a previously
> > + * unloaded module which is now being loaded again. In that case, skip
> > + * the warning and the instruction write.
> > + */
> > + if (insn_val == PPC_INST_LD_TOC)
> > + return 0;
>
> Do we need "sym->st_shndx == SHN_LIVEPATCH" here?
My original patch had that check, but I dropped it for simplicity.
In the non-livepatch case, the condition should never be true, but it
doesn't hurt to check it anyway.
--
Josh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/module_64: Fix "expected nop" error on module re-patching
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:46:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230125164609.wvuarciciyoqa3tb@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPhsuW40jEiyp0ogsO6oH_frpFCmiioSHrMOKkwGcZ8_6w5dZA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:09:56PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > @@ -514,9 +515,18 @@ static int restore_r2(const char *name, u32 *instruction, struct module *me)
> > if (!instr_is_relative_link_branch(ppc_inst(*prev_insn)))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (*instruction != PPC_RAW_NOP()) {
> > + /*
> > + * For livepatch, the restore r2 instruction might have already been
> > + * written previously, if the referenced symbol is in a previously
> > + * unloaded module which is now being loaded again. In that case, skip
> > + * the warning and the instruction write.
> > + */
> > + if (insn_val == PPC_INST_LD_TOC)
> > + return 0;
>
> Do we need "sym->st_shndx == SHN_LIVEPATCH" here?
My original patch had that check, but I dropped it for simplicity.
In the non-livepatch case, the condition should never be true, but it
doesn't hurt to check it anyway.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-25 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-25 3:38 [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Fix livepatch module re-patching issue Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 3:38 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 3:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/module_64: Improve restore_r2() return semantics Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 3:38 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 5:53 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 5:53 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 13:24 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-25 13:24 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-27 12:38 ` Miroslav Benes
2023-01-27 12:38 ` Miroslav Benes
2023-01-25 3:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/module_64: Fix "expected nop" error on module re-patching Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 3:38 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 6:09 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 6:09 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 16:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2023-01-25 16:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 17:36 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 17:36 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 18:53 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-01-25 18:58 ` Song Liu
2023-01-25 13:31 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-25 13:31 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-27 12:50 ` Miroslav Benes
2023-01-27 12:50 ` Miroslav Benes
2023-01-27 13:48 ` [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Fix livepatch module re-patching issue Joe Lawrence
2023-01-27 13:48 ` Joe Lawrence
2023-02-04 17:23 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-04 17:23 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-05 0:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2023-02-05 0:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2023-02-05 16:21 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-05 16:21 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-02-05 0:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2023-02-05 0:46 ` Michael Ellerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230125164609.wvuarciciyoqa3tb@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.