[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220322022331.32136-1-palmer@rivosinc.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:23:31 -0700
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
To: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, changbin.du@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
Subject: [PATCH] RISC-V: Don't check text_mutex during stop_machine
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
We're currently using stop_machine() to update ftrace, which means that
the thread that takes text_mutex during ftrace_prepare() may not be the
same as the thread that eventually patches the code. This isn't
actually a race because the lock is still held (preventing any other
concurrent accesses) and there is only one thread running during
stop_machine(), but it does trigger a lockdep failure.
This patch just elides the lockdep check during stop_machine.
Fixes: c15ac4fd60d5 ("riscv/ftrace: Add dynamic function tracer support")
Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Reported-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
--
Changes since v1 [<20210506071041.417854-1-palmer@...belt.com>]:
* Use ftrace_arch_ocde_modify_{prepare,post_process}() to set the flag.
I remember having a reason I wanted the function when I wrote the v1,
but it's been almost a year and I forget what that was -- maybe I was
just crazy, the patch was sent at midnight.
* Fix DYNAMIC_FTRACE=n builds.
---
arch/riscv/include/asm/ftrace.h | 7 +++++++
arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c | 12 ++++++++++++
arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 10 +++++++++-
3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/ftrace.h
index 04dad3380041..3ac7609f4ee9 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/ftrace.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/ftrace.h
@@ -81,8 +81,15 @@ do { \
struct dyn_ftrace;
int ftrace_init_nop(struct module *mod, struct dyn_ftrace *rec);
#define ftrace_init_nop ftrace_init_nop
+extern int riscv_ftrace_in_stop_machine;
#endif
+#else /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE */
+
+#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+#define riscv_ftrace_in_stop_machine 0
#endif
+#endif /* CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE */
+
#endif /* _ASM_RISCV_FTRACE_H */
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c
index 4716f4cdc038..c5f77922d7ea 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/ftrace.c
@@ -11,15 +11,27 @@
#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
#include <asm/patch.h>
+int riscv_ftrace_in_stop_machine;
+
#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
int ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare(void) __acquires(&text_mutex)
{
mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
+
+ /*
+ * The code sequences we use for ftrace can't be patched while the
+ * kernel is running, so we need to use stop_machine() to modify them
+ * for now. This doesn't play nice with text_mutex, we use this flag
+ * to elide the check.
+ */
+ riscv_ftrace_in_stop_machine = true;
+
return 0;
}
int ftrace_arch_code_modify_post_process(void) __releases(&text_mutex)
{
+ riscv_ftrace_in_stop_machine = false;
mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
index 0b552873a577..7983dba477f0 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include <asm/kprobes.h>
#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
#include <asm/fixmap.h>
+#include <asm/ftrace.h>
#include <asm/patch.h>
struct patch_insn {
@@ -59,8 +60,15 @@ static int patch_insn_write(void *addr, const void *insn, size_t len)
* Before reaching here, it was expected to lock the text_mutex
* already, so we don't need to give another lock here and could
* ensure that it was safe between each cores.
+ *
+ * We're currently using stop_machine() for ftrace, and while that
+ * ensures text_mutex is held before installing the mappings it does
+ * not ensure text_mutex is held by the calling thread. That's safe
+ * but triggers a lockdep failure, so just elide it for that specific
+ * case.
*/
- lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
+ if (!riscv_ftrace_in_stop_machine)
+ lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
if (across_pages)
patch_map(addr + len, FIX_TEXT_POKE1);
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists