From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] livepatch: introduce shadow variable API
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:48:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <164836e1-2d33-ec32-46ac-d6360f671b17@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1707201644460.30401@pobox.suse.cz>
On 07/20/2017 10:45 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Note: allocates @new_size space for shadow variable data and copies
>>>>> + * @new_size bytes from @new_data into the shadow varaible's own @new_data
>>>>> + * space. If @new_data is NULL, @new_size is still allocated, but no
>>>>> + * copy is performed.
>>>>
>>>> I must say I'm not entirely happy with this. I don't know if this is what
>>>> Petr had in mind (I'm sure he'll get to the patch set soon). Calling
>>>> memcpy instead of a simple assignment in v1 seems worse.
>>>
>>> This change was a bit of a experiment on my part in reaction to
>>> adding klp_shadow_get_or_attach().
>>>
>>> I like the simplicity of v1's pointer assignment -- in fact, moving all
>>> allocation responsiblity (klp_shadow meta-data and data[] area) out to
>>> the caller is doable, though implementing klp_shadow_get_or_attach() and
>>> and klp_shadow_detach_all() complicates matters, for example, adding an
>>> alloc/release callback. I originally attempted this for v2, but turned
>>> back when the API and implementation grew complicated. If the memcpy
>>> and gfp_flag restrictions are too ugly, I can try revisting that
>>> approach. Ideas welcome :)
>>
>> Well, I didn't like callbacks either :). And no, I do not have a better
>> idea. I still need to think about it.
>
> Done and I agree that memcpy approach is not so bad after all :). So I'm
> fine with it.
I looked at it again this morning and a "pass-your-own" allocation API
always comes back to adding callbacks and other complications :( In the
end, most callers will be shadowing pointers and not entire structures,
so I think the copy isn't too bad.
On a related note, if we keep the allocations and memcpy, how about I
shift around the attach/get calls like so:
__klp_shadow_attach
set shadow variable member values
memcpy
add to hash
klp_shadow_attach
alloc new shadow var
lock
call __klp_shadow_attach with new alloc
unlock
klp_shadow_get_or_attach
be optimistic, call klp_shadow_get (if found, return it)
be pessimistic, alloc new shadow var
lock
call klp_shadow_get again
if unlikely found
kfree unneeded alloc
else
call __klp_shadow_attach with new alloc
unlock
return whichever shadow var we used
This way both calls can accept gfp_flags that may sleep, with the only
downside that klp_shadow_get_or_attach may allocate an unnecessary
shadow variable in the unlikely case that it's found on the second
klp_shadow_get attempt (under the lock). No more clunky "bool lock"
flag either. :)
-- Joe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-20 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-28 15:37 [PATCH v2 0/2] livepatch: add shadow variable API Joe Lawrence
2017-06-28 15:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] livepatch: introduce " Joe Lawrence
2017-06-30 13:49 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-07 18:05 ` Joe Lawrence
2017-07-14 0:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-17 15:35 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-18 13:00 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-18 19:36 ` Joe Lawrence
2017-07-19 15:19 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-19 18:50 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-17 15:29 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-18 20:21 ` Joe Lawrence
2017-07-19 2:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-19 19:01 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-20 14:45 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-20 15:48 ` Joe Lawrence [this message]
2017-07-20 20:23 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-21 8:42 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-21 8:59 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-18 12:45 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-20 20:30 ` Joe Lawrence
2017-07-21 9:12 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-07-21 9:27 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-21 9:13 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-21 13:55 ` Joe Lawrence
2017-07-24 15:04 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] livepatch: add shadow variable sample programs Joe Lawrence
2017-07-18 14:47 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-18 19:15 ` Joe Lawrence
2017-07-19 14:44 ` Petr Mladek
2017-07-19 15:06 ` Petr Mladek
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=164836e1-2d33-ec32-46ac-d6360f671b17@redhat.com \
--to=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jeyu@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).