From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5F6C38A02 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:48:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MxqtX1cS6z3cDJ for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:48:36 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=KbGVf7de; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=bgray@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=KbGVf7de; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MxqsR0Rzwz2xJ7 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:47:38 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29Q0bWfD015376; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:29 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=UYCCGky8MHtj7NF2TlsoTQoM9LR24OJjLq1LwAiEy6s=; b=KbGVf7dexOpIaKb/48Du1VjmcQVjdI8GC4doCQnKhBJmIBE8WlI3IHQMZHhBXAOx3GZq q8NPuqq8oxmhZhkmAqQqhjx1QAOqQu1pnMYS1FKoGqtS8DJF35pov9jKE2hjAyccKSh/ m1F84x0RV0evO0zPtWIrJc4HIXN8Buv7bBLkCUtYlm+YZa2w0IZyldFGoFY4R1anCFXp dmEjiqLieglyaE97bVXu+pUpGZ5k/RTc7Rljx590ZTWxq2E+gClzHvUSvXJruMS7DH2k dxRfq55NMeySChx330cH5sajuCFmP93m5qNFvIJmCfCujsOx2aYvksGNML8rL2G8aruQ Sg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ked6rkwmf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:28 +0000 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 29Q0eZm4026502; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:28 GMT Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ked6rkwm4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:28 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 29Q0djM4022514; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3kc859nasj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:26 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 29Q0lN3531260944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:23 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E56AE051; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFEAAE04D; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (unknown [9.192.253.14]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:47:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-0d7fa1cc-2c9d-11b2-a85c-aed20764436d.ibm.com (haven.au.ibm.com [9.192.254.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB0E460609; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:47:21 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/7] powerpc/code-patching: Verify instruction patch succeeded From: Benjamin Gray To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:47:21 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20221025044409.448755-5-bgray@linux.ibm.com> References: <20221025044409.448755-1-bgray@linux.ibm.com> <20221025044409.448755-5-bgray@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-2.fc36) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: KRJ5d_BfEx6eNvyGdrEajU_e9PJVX9Xk X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: sviuvemBtYbkE-EGr69Vu3PpBZMIXxWB X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.895,Hydra:6.0.545,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-10-25_15,2022-10-25_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=897 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2209130000 definitions=main-2210260000 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jniethe5@gmail.com, cmr@bluescreens.de, ajd@linux.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" It occurred to me that we don't require holding a lock when patching text. Many use cases do hold text_mutex, but it's not required, so it's possible for this warning to show false positives. If we do want text_mutex be held, then lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex) ought to be added too.