[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160215232735.GC3018@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:27:35 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] livepatch/module: remove livepatch module notifier
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:59:00PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > > > Remove the livepatch module notifier in favor of directly enabling and
> > > > disabling patches to modules in the module loader. Hard-coding the
> > > > function calls ensures that ftrace_module_enable() is run before
> > > > klp_module_coming() during module load, and that klp_module_going() is
> > > > run before ftrace_release_mod() during module unload. This way, ftrace
> > > > and livepatch code is run in the correct order during the module
> > > > load/unload sequence without dependence on the module notifier call chain.
> > > >
> > > > This fixes a notifier ordering issue in which the ftrace module notifier
> > > > (and hence ftrace_module_enable()) for coming modules was being called
> > > > after klp_module_notify(), which caused livepatch modules to initialize
> > > > incorrectly.
> > >
> > > Without a Fixes: line, it's not absolutely clear whether this needs
> > > CC:stable, needs to go to Linus now, or can wait for the next merge
> > > window.
> > >
> > > I *think* you want all four merged this merge window, and 3 and 4 are
> > > required to fix a regression introduced since 4.4...
> >
> > Your understanding is correct; #3 and #4 are needed to fix a 4.4
> > regression. It makes sense for the whole lot go to together, but for #1
> > and #2 I absolutely need your Ack before I take it to my tree, as I don't
> > want to be merging this behind your back.
> >
> > Once you Ack #1 and #2, I plan to take this to Linus immediately so that
> > we avoid doing these changes as very last minute.
>
> Rusty, friendly ping? :)
>
> I know that this is quite tight timing, but I'd like to have the 4.4
> regression fixed, and we are quite late in the -rc phase already.
So I think the commit causing the regression is 5156dca34a3e, which
occurred in the 4.5 cycle, *not* in 4.4.
Also it's my understanding that only the third patch ("remove ftrace
module notifier") is needed to fix the regression, and the other patches
are just general improvements. So if needed I think we can just rebase
that patch (which already has Rusty's ack I believe) and send it to
Linus now.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists