LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
jikos@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Allow user to specify functions to search for on a stack
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 11:07:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YZ9gfPuCTmDmOj9h@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40edd48c-6f45-29e3-4749-be37fb61afba@redhat.com>
On Mon 2021-11-22 10:53:21, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 11/22/21 2:57 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for doing this! And at peterz-esque speed no less :-)
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:03:26AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >>> livepatch's consistency model requires that no live patched function
> >>> must be found on any task's stack during a transition process after a
> >>> live patch is applied. It is achieved by walking through stacks of all
> >>> blocked tasks.
> >>>
> >>> The user might also want to define more functions to search for without
> >>> them being patched at all. It may either help with preparing a live
> >>> patch, which would otherwise require additional touches to achieve the
> >>> consistency
> >>
> >> Do we have any examples of this situation we can add to the commit log?
> >
> > I do not have anything at hand. Joe, do you remember the case you
> > mentioned previously about adding a nop to a function?
>
> Maybe adding a hypothetical scenario to the commit log would suffice?
I wonder if we could describe a scenario based on the thread about
.cold code variants, see
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211112015003.pefl656m3zmir6ov@treble/
This feature would allow to safely livepatch already released
kernels where the unwinder is not able to reliably detect
a newly discovered problems.
> >>> or it can be used to overcome deficiencies the stack
> >>> checking inherently has. For example, GCC may optimize a function so
> >>> that a part of it is moved to a different section and the function would
> >>> jump to it. This child function would not be found on a stack in this
> >>> case, but it may be important to search for it so that, again, the
> >>> consistency is achieved.
> >>>
> >>> Allow the user to specify such functions on klp_object level.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/linux/livepatch.h | 11 +++++++++++
> >>> kernel/livepatch/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >>> kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> >>> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> >>> index 2614247a9781..89df578af8c3 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> >>> @@ -106,9 +106,11 @@ struct klp_callbacks {
> >>> * struct klp_object - kernel object structure for live patching
> >>> * @name: module name (or NULL for vmlinux)
> >>> * @funcs: function entries for functions to be patched in the object
> >>> + * @funcs_stack: function entries for functions to be stack checked
> >>
> >> So there are two arrays/lists of 'klp_func', and two implied meanings of
> >> what a 'klp_func' is and how it's initialized.
> >>
> >> Might it be simpler and more explicit to just add a new external field
> >> to 'klp_func' and continue to have a single 'funcs' array? Similar to
> >> what we already do with the special-casing of 'nop', except it would be
> >> an external field, e.g. 'no_patch' or 'stack_only'.
>
> I'll add that the first thing that came to mind when you raised this
> feature idea in the other thread was to support existing klp_funcs array
> with NULL new_func's.
Please, solve this with the extra flag, e.g. .stack_only, as
already suggested. It will help to distinguish mistakes and
intentions. Also it will allow to find these symbols by grep.
> I didn't go look to see how invasive it would be,
> but it will be interesting to see if a single list approach turns out
> any simpler for v2.
I am not sure either. But I expect that it will be easier than
the extra array.
Best Regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-25 10:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-19 9:03 [PATCH 0/3] " Miroslav Benes
2021-11-19 9:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Move the initialization of old_func to a new function Miroslav Benes
2021-11-19 9:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Allow user to specify functions to search for on a stack Miroslav Benes
2021-11-19 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-19 18:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-22 7:57 ` Miroslav Benes
2021-11-22 15:53 ` Joe Lawrence
2021-11-25 10:07 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2021-11-25 10:20 ` Miroslav Benes
2021-12-03 16:01 ` Petr Mladek
2021-11-19 9:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] selftests/livepatch: Test of the API for specifying " Miroslav Benes
2021-11-25 14:39 ` Petr Mladek
2021-11-26 9:20 ` Miroslav Benes
2021-11-26 14:06 ` Petr Mladek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YZ9gfPuCTmDmOj9h@alley \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Allow user to specify functions to search for on a stack' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).