[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ca59cdd-e378-b8c6-7ac6-472568f1af97@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:52:16 +0800
From: ηθ΄ <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ftrace: disable preemption on the testing of
recursion
On 2021/10/12 δΈε8:29, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 14:24:43 +0200 (CEST)
> Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz> wrote:
>
>>> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
>>> @@ -52,11 +52,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
>>> bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
>>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bit < 0))
>>> return;
>>> - /*
>>> - * A variant of synchronize_rcu() is used to allow patching functions
>>> - * where RCU is not watching, see klp_synchronize_transition().
>>> - */
>>> - preempt_disable_notrace();
>>>
>>> func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
>>> stack_node);
>>> @@ -120,7 +115,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
>>> klp_arch_set_pc(fregs, (unsigned long)func->new_func);
>>>
>>> unlock:
>>> - preempt_enable_notrace();
>>> ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
>>> }
>>
>> I don't like this change much. We have preempt_disable there not because
>> of ftrace_test_recursion, but because of RCU. ftrace_test_recursion was
>> added later. Yes, it would work with the change, but it would also hide
>> things which should not be hidden in my opinion.
>
> Agreed, but I believe the change is fine, but requires a nice comment to
> explain what you said above.
>
> Thus, before the "ftrace_test_recursion_trylock()" we need:
>
> /*
> * The ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() will disable preemption,
> * which is required for the variant of synchronize_rcu() that is
> * used to allow patching functions where RCU is not watching.
> * See klp_synchronize_transition() for more details.
> */
Will be in v2 too :-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> -- Steve
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists