Re: [PATCH v4] livepatch: Prevent to apply the patch once coming module notifier fails

[Minfei Huang <mhuang@redhat.com>]

On 05/14/15 at 05:05pm, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have few nitpicks...
> 
> The subject is slightly misleading. We still apply the patch (or the patch 
> is already applied to be precise). Only the coming module is not patched 
> and won't be patched. So I propose something like
> 
> livepatch: prevent patch inconsistencies if the coming module notifier fails 
> 
> (or bugs, corruptions, whatever).

Will do.

> 
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Minfei Huang wrote:
> 
> > The previous patches can be applied, once the corresponding module is
> > loaded. In general, the patch will do relocation (if necessary) and
> > obtain/verify function address before we start to enable patch.
> > 
> > There are three different situations in which the coming module notifier
> > can fail:
> > 
> > 1) relocations are not applied for some reason. In this case kallsyms
> > for module symbol is not called at all. The patch is not applied to the
> > module. If the user disable and enable patch again, there is possible
> > bug in klp_enable_func. If the user specified func->old_addr for some
> > function in the module (and he shouldn't do that, but nevertheless) our
> > warning would not catch it, there will be something wrong with the
> > ftrace.
> 
> ", there will be something wrong with the ftrace."
> 
> I would improve that...
> 
> ", ftrace will reject to register the handler because of wrong address or 
> will register the handler for wrong address." But feel free to change it 
> according to your view. Just be more specific than the changelog is right
> now.
> 

Thanks


> > 2) relocations are applied successfully, but kallsyms lookup fails. In
> > this case func->old_addr can be correct for all previous lookups, 0 for
> > current failed one, and "unspecified" for the rest. If we undergo the
> > same scenario as in 1, the behaviour differs for three cases, but the
> > patch is not enable anyway.
> 
> s/enable/enabled/

Will correct it.
> 
> But I think it would be nice to describe different behaviours for the sake 
> of the changelog. I don't have strong opinion about this though.
> 

Thanks
Minfei


> > 3) the object is initialized, but klp_enable_object fails in the
> > notifier due to possible ftrace error. Since it is improbable that
> > ftrace would heal itself in the future, we would get those errors
> > everytime the patch is enabled.
> > 
> > In order to fix above situations, we can make obj->mod to NULL, if the
> > coming modified notifier fails.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Minfei Huang <mnfhuang@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > - modify the code style
> > v2:
> > - add the error message to make it more friendly
> > - modify the commit log, base on the mbenes@suse.cz suggesting
> > v1:
> > - modify the commit log, describe the issue more details
> > ---
> >  kernel/livepatch/core.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > index 284e269..d4603e7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> > @@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ int klp_register_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(klp_register_patch);
> >  
> > -static void klp_module_notify_coming(struct klp_patch *patch,
> > +static int klp_module_notify_coming(struct klp_patch *patch,
> >  				     struct klp_object *obj)
> >  {
> >  	struct module *pmod = patch->mod;
> > @@ -891,22 +891,24 @@ static void klp_module_notify_coming(struct klp_patch *patch,
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	ret = klp_init_object_loaded(patch, obj);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		goto err;
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		pr_warn("failed to initialize patch '%s' for module '%s' (%d)\n",
> > +			pmod->name, mod->name, ret);
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	if (patch->state == KLP_DISABLED)
> > -		return;
> > +		goto out;
> >  
> >  	pr_notice("applying patch '%s' to loading module '%s'\n",
> >  		  pmod->name, mod->name);
> >  
> >  	ret = klp_enable_object(obj);
> > -	if (!ret)
> > -		return;
> > -
> > -err:
> > -	pr_warn("failed to apply patch '%s' to module '%s' (%d)\n",
> > -		pmod->name, mod->name, ret);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		pr_warn("failed to apply patch '%s' to module '%s' (%d)\n",
> > +			pmod->name, mod->name, ret);
> > +out:
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void klp_module_notify_going(struct klp_patch *patch,
> > @@ -930,6 +932,7 @@ disabled:
> >  static int klp_module_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
> >  			     void *data)
> >  {
> > +	int ret;
> >  	struct module *mod = data;
> >  	struct klp_patch *patch;
> >  	struct klp_object *obj;
> > @@ -955,7 +958,12 @@ static int klp_module_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
> >  
> >  			if (action == MODULE_STATE_COMING) {
> >  				obj->mod = mod;
> > -				klp_module_notify_coming(patch, obj);
> > +				ret = klp_module_notify_coming(patch, obj);
> > +				if (ret) {
> > +					obj->mod = NULL;
> > +					pr_warn("patch '%s' is in an inconsistent state!\n",
> > +						patch->mod->name);
> > +				}
> >  			} else /* MODULE_STATE_GOING */
> >  				klp_module_notify_going(patch, obj);
> >  
> 
> Otherwise it looks ok. Please fix the minor issue Josh pointed out, 
> consider fixing the things mentioned above and respin.
> 
> Thanks a lot
> Miroslav