Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: Don't block removal of patches that are safe to unload

Miroslav Benes
2022-03-08T17:49:35Z

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Petr Mladek wrote:

> On Thu 2022-03-03 18:54:46, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> > module_put() is currently never called for a patch with forced flag, to block
> > the removal of that patch module that might still be in use after a forced
> > transition.
> >
> > But klp_force_transition() will set all patches on the list to be forced, since
> > commit d67a53720966 ("livepatch: Remove ordering (stacking) of the livepatches")
> > has removed stack ordering of the livepatches, it will cause all other patches can't
> > be unloaded after disabled even if they have completed the KLP_UNPATCHED transition.
> >
> > In fact, we don't need to set a patch to forced if it's a KLP_PATCHED forced
> > transition. It can still be unloaded safely as long as it has passed through
> > the consistency model in KLP_UNPATCHED transition.
>
> It really looks safe. klp_check_stack_func() makes sure that @new_func
> is not on the stack when klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED. As a
> result, the system should not be using code from the livepatch module
> when KLP_UNPATCHED transition cleanly finished.
>
>
> > But the exception is when force transition of an atomic replace patch, we
> > have to set all previous patches to forced, or they will be removed at
> > the end of klp_try_complete_transition().
> >
> > This patch only set the klp_transition_patch to be forced in KLP_UNPATCHED
> > case, and keep the old behavior when in atomic replace case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> > v2: interact nicely with the atomic replace feature noted by Miroslav.
> > ---
> > kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 8 ++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > index 5683ac0d2566..34ffb8c014ed 100644
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > @@ -641,6 +641,10 @@ void klp_force_transition(void)
> > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > klp_update_patch_state(idle_task(cpu));
> >
> > - klp_for_each_patch(patch)
> > - patch->forced = true;
> > + if (klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED)
> > + klp_transition_patch->forced = true;
> > + else if (klp_transition_patch->replace) {
> > + klp_for_each_patch(patch)
> > + patch->forced = true;
>
> This works only because there is should be only one patch when
> klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED and
> klp_transition_patch->forced == true.

I probably misunderstand, but the above is not generally true, is it? I
mean, if the transition patch is forced during its disablement, it does
not say anything about the amount of enabled patches.

> But it is a bit tricky. I would do it the other way:
>
> if (klp_transition_patch->replace) {
> klp_for_each_patch(patch)
> patch->forced = true;
> } else if (klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED) {
> klp_transition_patch->forced = true;
> }
>
> It looks more sane. And it makes it more clear
> that the special handling of KLP_UNPATCHED transition
> is done only when the atomic replace is not used.

But it is not the same. ->replace being true only comes into play when a
patch is enabled. If it is disabled, then it behaves like any other patch.

So, if there is ->replace patch enabled (and it is the only patch present)
and then more !->replace patches are loaded and then if ->replace patch is
disabled and forced, your proposal would give a different result than what
Chengming submitted, because in your case all the other patches will get
->forced set to true, while it is not the case in the original. It would
be an unnecessary restriction if I am not missing something.

However, I may got lost somewhere along the way.

Regards
Miroslav