[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171221152023.ed2lz2hwuczqwz46@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:20:23 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
jbaron@...mai.com, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: add locking to force and signal functions
On Thu 2017-12-21 14:40:43, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> klp_send_signals() and klp_force_transition() do not acquire klp_mutex,
> because it seemed to be superfluous. A potential race in
> klp_send_signals() was harmless and there was nothing in
> klp_force_transition() which needed to be synchronized. That changed
> with the addition of klp_forced variable during the review process.
>
> There is a small window now, when klp_complete_transition() does not see
> klp_forced set to true while all tasks have been already transitioned to
> the target state. module_put() is called and the module can be removed.
>
> Acquire klp_mutex in sysfs callback to prevent it. Do the same for the
> signal sending just to be sure. There is no real downside to that.
>
> Reported-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists