Re: [RFC PATCH v2 18/20] context_tracking,x86: Defer kernel text patching IPIs

Joel Fernandes
2023-07-25T17:47:19Z

On 7/25/23 09:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 06:49:45AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Interesting series Valentin. Some high-level question/comments on this one:
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2023, at 12:34 PM, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ﻿text_poke_bp_batch() sends IPIs to all online CPUs to synchronize
>>> them vs the newly patched instruction. CPUs that are executing in userspace
>>> do not need this synchronization to happen immediately, and this is
>>> actually harmful interference for NOHZ_FULL CPUs.
>>
>> Does the amount of harm not correspond to practical frequency of text_poke?
>> How often does instruction patching really happen? If it is very infrequent
>> then I am not sure if it is that harmful.
>
> Well, it can happen quite a bit, also from things people would not
> typically 'expect' it.
>
> For instance, the moment you create the first per-task perf event we
> frob some jump-labels (and again some second after the last one goes
> away).
>
> The same for a bunch of runtime network configurations.

Ok cool. I guess I still have memories of that old ARM device I had
where modifications to kernel text was forbidden by hardware (was a
security feature). That was making kprobes unusable...

>>> As the synchronization IPIs are sent using a blocking call, returning from
>>> text_poke_bp_batch() implies all CPUs will observe the patched
>>> instruction(s), and this should be preserved even if the IPI is deferred.
>>> In other words, to safely defer this synchronization, any kernel
>>> instruction leading to the execution of the deferred instruction
>>> sync (ct_work_flush()) must *not* be mutable (patchable) at runtime.
>>
>> If it is not infrequent, then are you handling the case where userland
>> spends multiple seconds before entering the kernel, and all this while
>> the blocking call waits? Perhaps in such situation you want the real IPI
>> to be sent out instead of the deferred one?
>
> Please re-read what Valentin wrote -- nobody is waiting on anything.

Makes sense. To be fair I received his email 3 minutes before yours ;-).
But thank you both for clarifying!

- Joel