From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] x86/alternative: assert text_mutex is taken
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:26:49 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180830112649.4b774f401d99a8b98e12008c@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180829210006.GA7166@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:00:06 -0700
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 08:44:47PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > at 1:13 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 07:36:22PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > >> at 10:11 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> at 1:59 AM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 01:11:42 -0700
> > >>>> Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Use lockdep to ensure that text_mutex is taken when text_poke() is
> > >>>>> called.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Actually it is not always taken, specifically when it is called by kgdb,
> > >>>>> so take the lock in these cases.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can we really take a mutex in kgdb context?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> kgdb_arch_remove_breakpoint
> > >>>> <- dbg_deactivate_sw_breakpoints
> > >>>> <- kgdb_reenter_check
> > >>>> <- kgdb_handle_exception
> > >>>> <- __kgdb_notify
> > >>>> <- kgdb_ll_trap
> > >>>> <- do_int3
> > >>>> <- kgdb_notify
> > >>>> <- die notifier
> > >>>>
> > >>>> kgdb_arch_set_breakpoint
> > >>>> <- dbg_activate_sw_breakpoints
> > >>>> <- kgdb_reenter_check
> > >>>> <- kgdb_handle_exception
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Both seems called in exception context, so we can not take a mutex lock.
> > >>>> I think kgdb needs a special path.
> > >>>
> > >>> You are correct, but I don’t want a special path. Presumably text_mutex is
> > >>> guaranteed not to be taken according to the code.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I guess the only concern is lockdep. Do you see any problem if I change
> > >>> mutex_lock() into mutex_trylock()? It should always succeed, and I can add a
> > >>> warning and a failure path if it fails for some reason.
> > >>
> > >> Err.. This will not work. I think I will drop this patch, since I cannot
> > >> find a proper yet simple assertion. Creating special path just for the
> > >> assertion seems wrong.
> > >
> > > It's probably worth expanding the comment for text_poke() to call out
> > > the kgdb case and reference kgdb_arch_{set,remove}_breakpoint(), whose
> > > code and comments make it explicitly clear why its safe for them to
> > > call text_poke() without acquiring the lock. Might prevent someone
> > > from going down this path again in the future.
> >
> > I thought that the whole point of the patch was to avoid comments, and
> > instead enforce the right behavior. I don’t understand well enough kgdb
> > code, so I cannot attest it does the right thing. What happens if
> > kgdb_do_roundup==0?
>
> As is, the comment is wrong because there are obviously cases where
> text_poke() is called without text_mutex being held. I can't attest
> to the kgdb code either. My thought was to document the exception so
> that if someone does want to try and enforce the right behavior they
> can dive right into the problem instead of having to learn of the kgdb
> gotcha the hard way. Maybe a FIXME is the right approach?
No, kgdb ensures that the text_mutex has not been held right before
calling text_poke. So they also take care the text_mutex. I guess
kgdb_arch_{set,remove}_breakpoint() is supposed to be run under
a special circumstance, like stopping all other threads/cores.
In that case, we can just check the text_mutex is not locked.
Anyway, kgdb is a very rare courner case. I think if CONFIG_KGDB is
enabled, lockdep and any assertion should be disabled, since kgdb
can tweak anything in the kernel with unexpected ways...
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-30 2:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-29 8:11 [RFC PATCH 0/6] x86: text_poke() fixes Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] x86/alternative: assert text_mutex is taken Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 8:59 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-29 17:11 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 19:36 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 20:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2018-08-29 20:44 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 21:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2018-08-29 22:56 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-30 2:26 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2018-08-30 5:23 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] x86/mm: temporary mm struct Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 9:49 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-29 15:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-29 16:54 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 21:38 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-30 1:38 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-30 1:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-31 4:42 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-29 15:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-29 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] fork: provide a function for copying init_mm Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 9:54 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-29 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] x86/alternatives: initializing temporary mm for patching Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 13:21 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-29 17:45 ` Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/alternatives: use temporary mm for text poking Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 9:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-29 15:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-29 16:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-29 16:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-29 16:37 ` Dave Hansen
2018-08-29 8:11 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] x86/alternatives: remove text_poke() return value Nadav Amit
2018-08-29 9:52 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-29 17:15 ` Nadav Amit
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=20180830112649.4b774f401d99a8b98e12008c@kernel.org \
--to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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).