Re: [PATCH v3 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

Miroslav Benes
2016-12-23T09:24:35Z

> > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > index 5efa262..e79ebb5 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/bug.h>
> > > #include <linux/printk.h>
> > > #include "patch.h"
> > > +#include "transition.h"
> > >
> > > static LIST_HEAD(klp_ops);
> > >
> > > @@ -54,15 +55,53 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
> > > {
> > > struct klp_ops *ops;
> > > struct klp_func *func;
> > > + int patch_state;
> > >
> > > ops = container_of(fops, struct klp_ops, fops);
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > +
> > > func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
> > > stack_node);
> > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!func))
> > > +
> > > + if (!func)
> > > goto unlock;
> >
> > Why do you removed the WARN_ON_ONCE(), please?
> >
> > We still add the function on the stack before registering
> > the ftrace handler. Also we unregister the ftrace handler
> > before removing the the last entry from the stack.
> >
> > AFAIK, unregister_ftrace_function() calls rcu_synchronize()'
> > to make sure that no-one is inside the handler once finished.
> > Mirek knows more about it.
>
> Hm, this is news to me. Mirek, please share :-)

Well, I think the whole thing is well described in emails I exchanged with
Steven few months ago. See [1].

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LNX.2.00.1608081041060.10833@pobox.suse.cz

> > If this is not true, we have a problem. For example,
> > we call kfree(ops) after unregister_ftrace_function();
>
> Agreed.

TL;DR - we should be ok as long as we do not do crazy things in the
handler, deliberate sleeping for example.

WARN_ON_ONCE() may be crazy too. I think we discussed it long ago and we
came to an agreement to remove it.

Miroslav, very slowly going through the patch set