From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc: jikos@kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Clear relocation targets on a module removal
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:26:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72b5e7b6-4c8d-4211-01ee-96c219f93807@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190904084932.gndrtewubqiaxmzy@pathway.suse.cz>
On 9/4/19 4:49 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2019-09-03 15:02:34, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/19 12:13 PM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>>>>> I can easily foresee more problems like those in the future. Going
>>>>> forward we have to always keep track of which special sections are
>>>>> needed for which architectures. Those special sections can change over
>>>>> time, or can simply be overlooked for a given architecture. It's
>>>>> fragile.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. It bothers me a lot. Even x86 "port" is not feature complete in
>>>> this regard (jump labels, alternatives,...) and who knows what lurks in
>>>> the corners of the other architectures we support.
>>>>
>>>> So it is in itself reason enough to do something about late module
>>>> patching.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Miroslav,
>>>
>>> I was tinkering with the "blue-sky" ideas that I mentioned to Josh the other
>>> day.
>>
>>> I dunno if you had a chance to look at what removing that code looks
>>> like, but I can continue to flesh out that idea if it looks interesting:
>>
>> Unfortunately no and I don't think I'll come up with something useful
>> before LPC, so anything is really welcome.
>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/joe-lawrence/linux/tree/blue-sky
>>>
>>> A full demo would require packaging up replacement .ko's with a livepatch, as
>>> well as "blacklisting" those deprecated .kos, etc. But that's all I had time
>>> to cook up last week before our holiday weekend here.
>>
>> Frankly, I'm not sure about this approach. I'm kind of torn. The current
>> solution is far from ideal, but I'm not excited about the other options
>> either. It seems like the choice is basically between "general but
>> technically complicated fragile solution with nontrivial maintenance
>> burden", or "something safer and maybe cleaner, but limiting for
>> users/distros". Of course it depends on whether the limitation is even
>> real and how big it is. Unfortunately we cannot quantify it much and that
>> is probably why our opinions (in the email thread) differ.
>
> I wonder what is necessary for a productive discussion on Plumbers:
>
Pre-planning this part of the miniconf is a great idea.
> + Josh would like to see what code can get removed when late
> handling of modules gets removed. I think that it might be
> partially visible from Joe's blue-sky patches.
>
>
> + I would like to better understand the scope of the current
> problems. It is about modifying code in the livepatch that
> depends on position of the related code:
>
> + relocations are rather clear; we will need them anyway
> to access non-public (static) API from the original code.
>
> + What are the other changes?
>
> + Do we use them in livepatches? How often?
>
> + How often new problematic features appear?
>
> + Would be possible to detect potential problems, for example
> by comparing the code in the binary and in memory when
> the module is loaded the normal way?
>
> + Would be possible to reset the livepatch code in memory
> when the related module is unloaded and safe us half
> of the troubles?
>
>
> + It might be useful to prepare overview of the existing proposals
> and agree on the positives and negatives. I am afraid that some
> of them might depend on the customer base and
> use cases. Sometimes we might not have enough information.
> But it might be good to get on the same page where possible.
>
> Anyway, it might rule out some variants so that we could better
> concentrate on the acceptable ones. Or come with yet another
> proposal that would avoid the real blockers.
>
>
> Any other ideas?
I'll just add to your list that late module patching introduces
complexity for klp-convert / livepatch style relocation support.
Without worrying about unloaded modules, I *think* klp-convert might
already be able to handle relocations in special sections (altinsts,
parainst, etc.).
I've put the current klp-convert patchset on top of the blue-sky branch
to see if this indeed the case, but I'm not sure if I'll get through
that experiment before LPC.
>
> Would it be better to discuss this in a separate room with
> a whiteboard or paperboard?
>
Whiteboard would probably be ideal, but paper would work and be more
transportable than the former.
-- Joe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-04 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-19 12:28 [RFC PATCH 0/2] livepatch: Clear relocation targets on a module removal Miroslav Benes
2019-07-19 12:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] livepatch: Nullify obj->mod in klp_module_coming()'s error path Miroslav Benes
2019-07-28 19:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-08-19 11:26 ` Petr Mladek
2019-07-19 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Clear relocation targets on a module removal Miroslav Benes
2019-07-22 9:33 ` Petr Mladek
2019-08-14 12:33 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-07-28 20:04 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-08-14 11:06 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-08-14 15:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-08-16 9:46 ` Petr Mladek
2019-08-22 22:36 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-08-23 8:13 ` Petr Mladek
2019-08-26 14:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-08-27 15:05 ` Joe Lawrence
2019-08-27 15:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-02 16:13 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-02 17:05 ` Joe Lawrence
2019-09-03 13:02 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-04 8:49 ` Petr Mladek
2019-09-04 16:26 ` Joe Lawrence [this message]
2019-09-05 2:50 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 11:09 ` Petr Mladek
2019-09-05 11:19 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-09-05 13:23 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 13:31 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-09-05 13:42 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 11:39 ` Joe Lawrence
2019-09-05 13:08 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 13:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 13:52 ` Petr Mladek
2019-09-05 14:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 12:03 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-05 12:35 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 12:49 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-05 11:52 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-05 2:32 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-05 12:16 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-05 12:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-09-06 12:51 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-09-06 15:38 ` Joe Lawrence
2019-09-06 16:45 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-08-26 13:44 ` Nicolai Stange
2019-08-26 15:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=72b5e7b6-4c8d-4211-01ee-96c219f93807@redhat.com \
--to=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).