[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210318161308.vu3dhezp2lczch6f@treble>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:13:08 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, jbaron@...mai.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
ardb@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sumit.garg@...aro.org, oliver.sang@...el.com, jarkko@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] static_call: Fix static_call_update() sanity check
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:31:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> if (!kernel_text_address((unsigned long)site_addr)) {
> - WARN_ONCE(1, "can't patch static call site at %pS",
> + /*
> + * This skips patching __exit, which is part of
> + * init_section_contains() but is not part of
> + * kernel_text_address().
> + *
> + * Skipping __exit is fine since it will never
> + * be executed.
> + */
> + WARN_ONCE(!static_call_is_init(site),
> + "can't patch static call site at %pS",
> site_addr);
> continue;
> }
It might be good to clarify the situation for __exit in modules in the
comment and/or changelog, as they both seem to be implicitly talking
only about __exit in vmlinux.
For CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD, the code ends up in the normal text area, so
static_call_is_init() is false and kernel_text_address() is true.
For !CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD, the code gets discarded during module load,
so static_call_is_init() and kernel_text_address() are both false. I
guess that will trigger a warning?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists