linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: stop using kstop

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151203093821.GD7023@arm.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:38:21 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	guohanjun@...wei.com, dingtianhong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: stop using kstop_machine to
 enable/disable tracing

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 05:21:22PM +0800, libin wrote:
> 
> on 2015/12/2 20:36, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 03:50:09PM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
> >> On arm64, kstop_machine which is hugely disruptive to a running
> >> system is not needed to convert nops to ftrace calls or back,
> >> because that modifed code is a single 32bit instructions which
> >> is impossible to cross cache (or page) boundaries, and the used str
> >> instruction is single-copy atomic.
> > This commit message is misleading, since the single-copy atomicity
> > guarantees don't apply to the instruction-side. Instead, the architecture
> > calls out a handful of safe instructions in "Concurrent modification and
> > execution of instructions".
> 
> Right, thank you for your comments.
> 
> > Now, those safe instructions *do* include NOP, B and BL, so that should
> > be sufficient for ftrace provided that we don't patch condition codes
> > (and I don't think we do).
> 
> Yes, and so far this assumption has no probem, but in order to avoid exceeding these
> safe insturctions in the future, we can use aarch64_insn_hotpatch_safe() to verify the
> instruction to determine whether needs stop_machine() to synchronize or use
> aarch64_insn_patch_text directly. Right or I am missing something?

I think you're missing the case where the instruction changes under our
feet after we've read it but before we've replaced it (e.g. due to module
unloading). I think that's why ftrace_modify_code has the comment about
lack of locking thanks to stop_machine.

Will
--
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/