Re: [PATCHv4 0/3] Kernel Live Patching

[Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>]

(2014/11/26 18:18), Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2014, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 
>>> Note to Steve:
>>> Masami's IPMODIFY patch is heading for -next via your tree.  Once it arrives,
>>> I'll rebase and make the change to set IPMODIFY.  Do not pull this for -next
>>> yet.  This version (v4) is for review and gathering acks.
>>
>> BTW, as we discussed IPMODIFY is an exclusive flag. So if we allocate 
>> ftrace_ops for each function in each patch, it could be conflict each 
>> other.
> 
> Yup, this corresponds to what Petr brought up yesterday. There are cases 
> where all solutions (kpatch, kgraft, klp) would allocate multiple 
> ftrace_ops for a single function entry (think of patching one function 
> multiple times in a row).
> 
> So it's not as easy as just setting the flag.
> 
>> Maybe we need to have another ops hashtable to find such conflict and 
>> new handler to handle it.
> 
> If I understand your proposal correctly, that would sound like a hackish 
> workaround, trying to basically trick the IPMODIFY flag semantics you just 
> implemented :)
> 
> What I'd propose instead is to make sure that we always have 
> just a ftrace_ops per function entry, and only update the pointers there 
> as necessary. Fortunately we can do the switch atomically, by making use 
> of ->private.

Would you mean per existing function entry, not per klp-func entry?
If so, it sounds good to me too :)

Thank you,


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com