[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1502161657380.9435@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:06:15 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] livepatch: allow patch modules to be removed
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 05:17:10PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Hm, even with Jiri Slaby's suggested fix to add the completion to the
> > > unregister path, I still get a lockdep warning. This looks more insidious,
> > > related to the locking order of a kernfs lock and the klp lock. I'll need to
> > > look at this some more...
> >
> > Yes, I was afraid of this. Lockdep warning is a separate bug. It is caused
> > by taking klp_mutex in enabled_store. During rmmod klp_unregister_patch
> > takes klp_mutex and destroys the sysfs structure. If somebody writes to
> > enabled just after unregister takes the mutex and before the sysfs
> > removal, he would cause the deadlock, because enabled_store takes the
> > "sysfs lock" and then klp_mutex. That is exactly what the lockdep tells us
> > below.
> >
> > We can look for inspiration elsewhere. Grep for s_active through git log
> > of the mainline offers several commits which dealt exactly with this. Will
> > browse through that...
>
> Thanks Miroslav, please let me know what you find. It wouldn't surprise
> me if this were a very common problem.
>
> One option would be to move the enabled_store() work out to a workqueue
> or something.
Yes, that is one possibility. It is not the only one.
1. we could replace mutex_lock in enabled_store with mutex_trylock. If the
lock was not acquired we would return -EBUSY. Or could we 'return
restart_syscall' (maybe after some tiny msleep)?
2. we could reorganize klp_unregister_patch somehow and move sysfs removal
out of mutex protection.
Miroslav
> > >
> > > To recreate:
> > >
> > > insmod livepatch-sample.ko
> > >
> > > # wait for patching to complete
> > >
> > > ~/a.out & <-- simple program which opens the "enabled" file in the background
> >
> > I didn't even need such a program. Lockdep warned me with sole insmod,
> > echo and rmmod. It is magically clever.
>
> Ah, even easier... lockdep is awesome.
>
> --
> Josh
>
--
Miroslav Benes
SUSE Labs
--
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