* [PATCH] x86/alternatives: free smp_alt_modules when enable smp
@ 2017-10-27 7:18 Zhou Chengming
2017-10-27 7:49 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Zhou Chengming @ 2017-10-27 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mingo, tglx, peterz, hpa, bp, jkosina, rostedt, mjurczyk
Cc: x86, linux-kernel, zhouchengming1
In the current code, we don't free smp_alt_modules when enable smp,
so have to wait module unload to call alternatives_smp_module_del()
to free its smp_alt_module. This strategy has shortcomings.
We can make sure smp_alt_modules will be useless after enable smp,
so free it all. And alternatives_smp_module_del() can return directly
when !uniproc_patched to avoid a list traversal.
Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
index 3344d33..8549269 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
@@ -534,6 +534,9 @@ void __init_or_module alternatives_smp_module_del(struct module *mod)
struct smp_alt_module *item;
mutex_lock(&smp_alt);
+ if (!uniproc_patched)
+ goto unlock;
+
list_for_each_entry(item, &smp_alt_modules, next) {
if (mod != item->mod)
continue;
@@ -541,12 +544,13 @@ void __init_or_module alternatives_smp_module_del(struct module *mod)
kfree(item);
break;
}
+unlock:
mutex_unlock(&smp_alt);
}
void alternatives_enable_smp(void)
{
- struct smp_alt_module *mod;
+ struct smp_alt_module *mod, *tmp;
/* Why bother if there are no other CPUs? */
BUG_ON(num_possible_cpus() == 1);
@@ -558,9 +562,12 @@ void alternatives_enable_smp(void)
BUG_ON(num_online_cpus() != 1);
clear_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_UP);
clear_cpu_cap(&cpu_data(0), X86_FEATURE_UP);
- list_for_each_entry(mod, &smp_alt_modules, next)
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(mod, tmp, &smp_alt_modules, next) {
alternatives_smp_lock(mod->locks, mod->locks_end,
mod->text, mod->text_end);
+ list_del(&mod->next);
+ kfree(mod);
+ }
uniproc_patched = false;
}
mutex_unlock(&smp_alt);
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: free smp_alt_modules when enable smp
2017-10-27 7:18 [PATCH] x86/alternatives: free smp_alt_modules when enable smp Zhou Chengming
@ 2017-10-27 7:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-10-27 8:11 ` zhouchengming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2017-10-27 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhou Chengming
Cc: mingo, tglx, peterz, hpa, jkosina, rostedt, mjurczyk, x86,
linux-kernel
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:18:12PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
> In the current code, we don't free smp_alt_modules when enable smp,
> so have to wait module unload to call alternatives_smp_module_del()
> to free its smp_alt_module. This strategy has shortcomings.
I love it when the commit message states there is allegedly some problem
but it doesn't explain what that problem is.
>From the looks of the patch, though, I'd prefer what we do now and not
touch the code.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: free smp_alt_modules when enable smp
2017-10-27 7:49 ` Borislav Petkov
@ 2017-10-27 8:11 ` zhouchengming
2017-10-27 8:27 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: zhouchengming @ 2017-10-27 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: mingo, tglx, peterz, hpa, jkosina, rostedt, mjurczyk, x86,
linux-kernel
On 2017/10/27 15:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:18:12PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>> In the current code, we don't free smp_alt_modules when enable smp,
>> so have to wait module unload to call alternatives_smp_module_del()
>> to free its smp_alt_module. This strategy has shortcomings.
> I love it when the commit message states there is allegedly some problem
> but it doesn't explain what that problem is.
Well, I should explain it although it's small shortcomings. First, maybe
some modules don't unload after smp enabled, so these smp_alt_modules won't
be freed even they are useless anymore. Second, every module has to call
alternatives_smp_module_del() when unload to see if it's in the list even
after smp enabled, it's complete useless work. So why not take the quick
way like we do in alternatives_smp_module_add() ?
Thanks.
> > From the looks of the patch, though, I'd prefer what we do now and not
> touch the code.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: free smp_alt_modules when enable smp
2017-10-27 8:11 ` zhouchengming
@ 2017-10-27 8:27 ` Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2017-10-27 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zhouchengming
Cc: mingo, tglx, peterz, hpa, jkosina, rostedt, mjurczyk, x86,
linux-kernel
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:11:17PM +0800, zhouchengming wrote:
> So why not take the quick way like we do in
> alternatives_smp_module_add() ?
Because
1. there's no real problem with the current state
2. the current way is cleaner as it keeps that code away in
module_arch_cleanup().
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-10-27 8:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-27 7:18 [PATCH] x86/alternatives: free smp_alt_modules when enable smp Zhou Chengming
2017-10-27 7:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-10-27 8:11 ` zhouchengming
2017-10-27 8:27 ` Borislav Petkov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox