Message-ID: <20091007032901.GB12202@Krystal>
Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:29:01 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, ak@...e.de,
	roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com, mhiramat@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] jump label - make init_kernel_text() global

* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca) wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 08:39 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > 
> > > I might be missing a bit of context here, I just want to make sure we
> > > are on the same page: patching a jmp instruction is safe on UP, safe
> > > with stop_machine(), is very likely safe with the breakpoint-ipi
> > 
> > Hi Mathieu,
> > 
> > I've been reading through these threads (both this one and the immediate
> > one) and I'm still a bit confused. I really want to understand this in a
> > simple way, thus make sure everyone else understands it too.
> > 
> > >From what Arjan said here:
> > 
> >   http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/25/98
> > 
> > The issue is going back from the int3 to the old value. How does the
> > breakpoint-ipi work?
> > 
> > Supposedly, we can add an int3 to the code without any worry. If another
> > CPU at that same time hits that code path, it will either run the old
> > code, or take the interrupt. The breakpoint interrupt handler, will
> > handle that code path, and the execution continues.
> > 
> > Now what is the issues with removing the int3 and placing back the old
> > (or new) value. Is there an issue if another CPU is about to execute
> > that code path as we remove the int3? If so, how does sending an IPI
> > help the matter without adding more races?
> > 
> > Is there only an issue if we change the old value with something else,
> > and you just need to send the IPI after you modify the old code and
> > before removing the int3?
> > 
> > I may just be totally confused, which I usually am. But when I'm not
> > confused, I feel that the code is practical ;-)
> > 
> 
> Hi Steven,
> 
> OK, I'll make the explanation as straightforward as possible. I'll use a
> race example to illustrate what we try to avoid by using the
> breakpoint+ipi scheme. After that, I present the same scenario with the
> breakpoint+ipi in place.
> 
> Each step shows what is executed, and what is the memory values seen by
> the CPU. CPU A is doing the code patching, CPU B executing the code.
> I intentionally left out some sfence required on CPU A for simplicity.)
> 
> Initially, let's say we have:
> (1)  (2)
> 0xeb 0xe5    (jmp to offset 0xe5)
> 
> And we want to change this to:
> (1)  (2)
> 0xeb 0xf0    (jmp to offset 0xf0)
> 
> (scenario "buggy")
> 
> CPU A       |       CPU B  (this is about as far as my ascii-art skills go)
> -------------------------    ;)
> 0xeb 0xe5     0xeb 0xe5
> 0:            CPU B instruction pointer is earlier than (1)
>               CPU B pipeline speculatively predicts branches,
>               prefetches data, calculates speculated values.

Clarification: going back to my past exchanges with Richard J Moore, the
specific CPU "state" that needs to be consistent on CPU B here across
0-4 is the instruction trace cache.

Mathieu

> 1:            CPU B loads 0xeb
> 2:            CPU B loads 0xe5
> 3:
> Write to (2)
> 0xeb 0xf0     0xeb 0xf0
> 4:            CPU B instruction pointer gets to (1), needs to validate
>               all the pipeline speculation.
>               But ! The CPU does not expect code to change underneath.
>               General protection fault (or any other fault.. random..)
> 
> 
> Now with the breakpoint+ipi/mb() scheme:
> (scenario A: CPU B does not hit the breakpoint)
> 
> CPU A       |       CPU B
> -------------------------
> 0xeb 0xe5     0xeb 0xe5
> 0:            CPU B instruction pointer is earlier than (1)
>               CPU B pipeline speculatively predicts branches,
>               prefetches data, calculates speculated values.
> 1:            CPU B loads 0xeb
> 2:            CPU B loads 0xe5
> 3:
> Write to (1)
> 0xcc 0xe5     0xcc 0xe5  # breakpoint inserted
> 4: send IPI
> 5:            mfence     # serializing instruction. Flushes CPU B's
>                          # pipeline
> 6:
> Write to (2)
> 0xcc 0xf0     0xcc 0xf0
> 7:
> Write to (1)
> 0xeb 0xf0     0xeb 0xf0
> 8:            CPU B instruction pointer gets to (1), needs to validate
>               all the pipeline speculation. Because we flushed any
>               speculation prior to the mfence, we're ok.
> 
> 
> Now, I'll show why just using the breakpoint, without IPI, is
> problematic:
> 
> CPU A       |       CPU B
> -------------------------
> 0xeb 0xe5     0xeb 0xe5
> 0:            CPU B instruction pointer is earlier than (1)
>               CPU B pipeline speculatively predicts branches,
>               prefetches data, calculates speculated values.
> 1:            CPU B loads 0xeb
> 2:            CPU B loads 0xe5
> 3:
> Write to (1)
> 0xcc 0xe5     0xcc 0xf0  # breakpoint inserted
> 4:
> Write to (2)
> 0xcc 0xf0     0xeb 0xf0  # Silly CPU B. Did not see nor use the breakpoint.
>                          # Same problem as scenario "buggy".
> 5:
> Write to (1)
> 0xeb 0xf0     0xeb 0xf0
> 4:            CPU B instruction pointer gets to (1), needs to validate
>               all the pipeline speculation.
>               But ! The CPU does not expect code to change underneath.
>               General protection fault (or any other fault.. random..)
> 
> So, basically, we ensure that the only transitions CPU B will see are
> either:
> 
> 0xeb 0xe5 -> 0xcc 0xe5 : OK, adding breakpoint
> 0xcc 0xe5 -> 0xcc 0xf0 : OK, not using the operand anyway, it's a
>                              breakpoint!
> 0xcc 0xf0 -> 0xeb 0xf0 : OK, removing breakpoint
> 
> *but*, the transition we guarantee that CPU B will *never* see without
> having a mfence executed between the old and the new version is:
> 
> 0xeb 0xe5 -> 0xeb 0xf0  <----- buggy.
> 
> Hope the explanation helps,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> 
> > -- Steve
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > approach (but we need the confirmation from Intel, which hpa is trying
> > > to get), but is definitely _not_ safe if neither of these methods are
> > > used on a SMP system. If a non-aligned multi-word jump is modified while
> > > another CPU is fetching the instruction, bad things could happen.
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists