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] livepatch: Allow user to specify functions to search for on a stack 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 \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).