[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160504084223.GQ2749@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:42:23 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 17/18] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency
model
On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
> #include <linux/compiler.h>
> #include <linux/sysctl.h>
> #include <linux/kcov.h>
> +#include <linux/livepatch.h>
>
> #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
> @@ -1586,6 +1587,8 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
> p->parent_exec_id = current->self_exec_id;
> }
>
> + klp_copy_process(p);
I am in doubts here. We copy the state from the parent here. It means
that the new process might still need to be converted. But at the same
point print_context_stack_reliable() returns zero without printing
any stack trace when TIF_FORK flag is set. It means that a freshly
forked task might get be converted immediately. I seems that boot
operations are always done when copy_process() is called. But
they are contradicting each other.
I guess that print_context_stack_reliable() should either return
-EINVAL when TIF_FORK is set. Or it should try to print the
stack of the newly forked task.
Or do I miss something, please?
> +
> spin_lock(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> /*
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..92819bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> +/*
> + * This function can be called in the middle of an existing transition to
> + * reverse the direction of the target patch state. This can be done to
> + * effectively cancel an existing enable or disable operation if there are any
> + * tasks which are stuck in the initial patch state.
> + */
> +void klp_reverse_transition(void)
> +{
> + struct klp_patch *patch = klp_transition_patch;
> +
> + klp_target_state = !klp_target_state;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that if another CPU goes through the syscall barrier, sees
> + * the TIF_PATCH_PENDING writes in klp_start_transition(), and calls
> + * klp_patch_task(), it also sees the above write to the target state.
> + * Otherwise it can put the task in the wrong universe.
> + */
> + smp_wmb();
> +
> + klp_start_transition();
> + klp_try_complete_transition();
It is a bit strange that we keep the work scheduled. It might be
better to use
mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &klp_work, 0);
Which triggers more ideas from the nitpicking deparment:
I would move the work definition from core.c to transition.c because
it is closely related to klp_try_complete_transition();
When on it. I would make it more clear that the work is related
to transition. Also I would call queue_delayed_work() directly
instead of adding the klp_schedule_work() wrapper. The delay
might be defined using a constant, e.g.
#define KLP_TRANSITION_DELAY round_jiffies_relative(HZ)
queue_delayed_work(system_wq, &klp_transition_work, KLP_TRANSITION_DELAY);
Finally, the following is always called right after
klp_start_transition(), so I would call it from there.
if (!klp_try_complete_transition())
klp_schedule_work();
> +
> + patch->enabled = !patch->enabled;
> +}
> +
It is really great work! I am checking this patch from left, right, top,
and even bottom and all seems to work well together.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists