[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1801111737190.11852@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:37:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
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, 21 Dec 2017, 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>
I've added two Fixes: tags and applied to for-4.16/signal-sysfs-force-v2.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists