From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@canonical.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:46:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170208164636.moddpqpwppozk5v3@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170208154749.GE2640@linux.suse>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Notice in this case that klp_target_state is KLP_PATCHED. Which means
> > that klp_complete_transition() would not call synchronize_rcu() at the
> > right time, nor would it call module_put(). It can be fixed with:
> >
> > @@ -387,7 +389,7 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> > pr_warn("failed to enable patch '%s'\n",
> > patch->mod->name);
> >
> > - klp_unpatch_objects(patch);
> > + klp_target_state = KLP_UNPATCHED;
> > klp_complete_transition();
> >
> > return ret;
>
> Great catch! Looks good to me.
As it turns out, klp_target_state isn't accessible from this file, so
I'll make a klp_cancel_transition() helper function which reverses
klp_target_state and calls klp_complete_transition().
> > This assumes that the 'if (klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED)' clause in
> > klp_try_complete_transition() gets moved to klp_complete_transition() as
> > you suggested.
> >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > > > index 5efa262..1a77f05 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > > > > #include <linux/bug.h>
> > > > > > #include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > > > #include "patch.h"
> > > > > > +#include "transition.h"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static LIST_HEAD(klp_ops);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -54,15 +55,58 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > struct klp_ops *ops;
> > > > > > struct klp_func *func;
> > > > > > + int patch_state;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ops = container_of(fops, struct klp_ops, fops);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
> > > > > > stack_node);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * func should never be NULL because preemption should be disabled here
> > > > > > + * and unregister_ftrace_function() does the equivalent of a
> > > > > > + * synchronize_sched() before the func_stack removal.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!func))
> > > > > > + goto unlock;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * Enforce the order of the ops->func_stack and func->transition reads.
> > > > > > + * The corresponding write barrier is in __klp_enable_patch().
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + smp_rmb();
> > > > >
> > > > > I was curious why the comment did not mention __klp_disable_patch().
> > > > > It was related to the hours of thinking. I would like to avoid this
> > > > > in the future and add a comment like.
> > > > >
> > > > > * This barrier probably is not needed when the patch is being
> > > > > * disabled. The patch is removed from the stack in
> > > > > * klp_try_complete_transition() and there we need to call
> > > > > * rcu_synchronize() to prevent seeing the patch on the stack
> > > > > * at all.
> > > > > *
> > > > > * Well, it still might be needed to see func->transition
> > > > > * when the patch is removed and the task is migrated. See
> > > > > * the write barrier in __klp_disable_patch().
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, though as you mentioned earlier, there's also the implicit
> > > > barrier in klp_update_patch_state(), which would execute first in such a
> > > > scenario. So I think I'll update the barrier comments in
> > > > klp_update_patch_state().
> > >
> > > You inspired me to a scenario with 3 CPUs:
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> > >
> > > __klp_disable_patch()
> > >
> > > klp_init_transition()
> > >
> > > func->transition = true
> > >
> > > smp_wmb()
> > >
> > > klp_start_transition()
> > >
> > > set TIF_PATCH_PATCHPENDING
> > >
> > > klp_update_patch_state()
> > >
> > > task->patch_state
> > > = KLP_UNPATCHED
> > >
> > > smp_mb()
> > >
> > > klp_ftrace_handler()
> > > func = list_...
> > >
> > > smp_rmb() /*needed?*/
> > >
> > > if (func->transition)
> > >
> >
> > I think this isn't possible. Remember the comment I added to
> > klp_update_patch_state():
> >
> > * NOTE: If task is not 'current', the caller must ensure the task is inactive.
> > * Otherwise klp_ftrace_handler() might read the wrong 'patch_state' value.
> >
> > Right now klp_update_patch_state() is only called for current.
> > klp_ftrace_handler() on CPU2 would be running in the context of a
> > different task.
>
> I agree that it is impossible with the current code. In fact, I cannot
> imagine a way to migrate the task where the barrier would be needed.
> The question if we could/should somehow document it. Something like
>
> * The barrier is not really needed when the patch is being
> * disabled. The value of func->transition would change
> * the result of this handled only after the task is migrated.
> * But the conditions for the migration are very limited
> * and practically include a full barrier, see
> * klp_update_patch_state().
Well, I'd like to avoid over-commenting this issue. For v5 I've added
the following comment to klp_update_patch_state() -- see #2:
/*
* This test_and_clear_tsk_thread_flag() call also serves as a read
* barrier (smp_rmb) for two cases:
*
* 1) Enforce the order of the TIF_PATCH_PENDING read and the
* klp_target_state read. The corresponding write barrier is in
* klp_init_transition().
*
* 2) Enforce the order of the TIF_PATCH_PENDING read and a future read
* of func->transition, if klp_ftrace_handler() is called later on
* the same CPU. See __klp_disable_patch().
*/
Is that sufficient? If not, I could maybe add another related comment
in klp_ftrace_handler() which refers to this comment.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-08 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-19 15:46 [PATCH v4 00/15] livepatch: hybrid consistency model Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-26 13:56 ` Petr Mladek
2017-01-26 17:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-27 8:47 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-01-27 17:13 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-01 19:57 ` [PATCH v4.1 " Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-02 14:39 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 02/15] x86/entry: define _TIF_ALLWORK_MASK flags explicitly Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 03/15] livepatch: create temporary klp_update_patch_state() stub Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-27 8:52 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 04/15] livepatch/x86: add TIF_PATCH_PENDING thread flag Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 05/15] livepatch/powerpc: " Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 06/15] livepatch/s390: reorganize TIF thread flag bits Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 07/15] livepatch/s390: add TIF_PATCH_PENDING thread flag Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 08/15] livepatch: separate enabled and patched states Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 09/15] livepatch: remove unnecessary object loaded check Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 10/15] livepatch: move patching functions into patch.c Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 11/15] livepatch: use kstrtobool() in enabled_store() Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 12/15] livepatch: store function sizes Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-02 11:45 ` Petr Mladek
2017-02-02 11:47 ` Petr Mladek
2017-02-02 11:51 ` Petr Mladek
2017-02-03 16:21 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-02-03 20:39 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-06 16:44 ` Petr Mladek
2017-02-06 19:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-08 15:47 ` Petr Mladek
2017-02-08 16:46 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2017-02-09 10:24 ` Petr Mladek
2017-02-03 16:41 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-02-06 15:58 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-07 8:21 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 14/15] livepatch: add /proc/<pid>/patch_state Josh Poimboeuf
2017-01-31 14:31 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-01-31 14:56 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-01 8:54 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-01-19 15:46 ` [PATCH v4 15/15] livepatch: allow removal of a disabled patch Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-03 16:48 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-02-01 20:02 ` [PATCH v4 00/15] livepatch: hybrid consistency model Josh Poimboeuf
2017-02-01 20:52 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-02-01 21:01 ` Jiri Kosina
2017-02-02 14:37 ` 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=20170208164636.moddpqpwppozk5v3@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=chris.j.arges@canonical.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jeyu@redhat.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=vojtech@suse.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).