From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757932AbcDELgi (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:36:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60933 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756577AbcDELgg (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:36:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 13:36:34 +0200 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: Miroslav Benes , Jiri Kosina , Jessica Yu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1.9 12/14] livepatch: create per-task consistency model Message-ID: <20160405113634.GA5930@suse.cz> References: <74a2b37cea7a64a185e50876dba031137aa59a24.1458933243.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com> <20160404182138.pjze2fvtmknq2ksq@treble.redhat.com> <20160404182759.GA10777@suse.cz> <20160404183307.2hbht3g4l7ei54rt@treble.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160404183307.2hbht3g4l7ei54rt@treble.redhat.com> X-Bounce-Cookie: It's a lemon tree, dear Watson! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 01:33:07PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 08:27:59PM +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 01:21:38PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > Hm, can you explain why it should be copied from the parent? > > > > > > I'm thinking the above code is correct for today, but it should still be > > > changed to be more future-proof. > > > > > > Here's my thinking: > > > > > > A forked task starts out with no stack, so if I understand correctly, it > > > can safely start out in the goal universe, regardless of which universe > > > its parent belongs to. > > > > > > However, the current ret_from_fork code is a mess, and Andy Lutomirski > > > has mentioned that he would like to give newly forked tasks a proper > > > stack such that instead of jumping to ret_from_fork, they would just > > > return from schedule(). In that case, it would no longer be safe to > > > start the new task in the goal universe because it could be "sleeping" > > > on a to-be-patched function. > > > > > > So for proper future proofing, newly forked tasks should be started in > > > the initial universe (rather than starting in the goal universe or > > > inheriting the parent's universe). They can then be transitioned over > > > to the goal universe like any other task. How does that sound? > > > > How could a newly forked task start in the old universe if its parent > > has already been migrated? Any context it inherits will already be from > > the new universe. > > Can you be more specific about "context" and why inheritance of it would > be a problem? Currently a forked task starts out with no stack, and as such it can start in the goal universe. If we create a synthetic stack, then we may need to start in the initial universe, as the synthetic stack would likely be created using initial universe return addresses. If we simply copy the stack of the parent process, which is in my opionion the safest way, as it places little assumptions on the compiler, then it may contain either old or new addresses and we need to copy the universe flag along. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SUSE Labs