On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:31:16PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote: > > > On 18 Apr 2024, at 13:20, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:36:08PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I might be missing something, but it seems a bit racy. > >> > >> IIUC, module_finalize() calls alternatives_smp_module_add(). At this > >> point, since you don’t hold the text_mutex, some might do text_poke(), > >> e.g., by enabling/disabling static-key, and the update would be > >> overwritten. No? > > > > Right :( > > Even worse, for UP case alternatives_smp_unlock() will "patch" still empty > > area. > > > > So I'm thinking about calling alternatives_smp_module_add() from an > > additional callback after the execmem_update_copy(). > > > > Does it make sense to you? > > Going over the code again - I might have just been wrong: I confused the > alternatives and the jump-label mechanisms (as they do share a lot of > code and characteristics). > > The jump-labels are updated when prepare_coming_module() is called, which > happens after post_relocation() [which means they would be updated using > text_poke() “inefficiently” but should be safe]. > > The “alternatives” appear only to use text_poke() (in contrast for > text_poke_early()) from very specific few flows, e.g., > common_cpu_up() -> alternatives_enable_smp(). > > Are those flows pose a problem after boot? Yes, common_cpu_up is called on CPU hotplug, so it's possible to have a race between alternatives_smp_module_add() and common_cpu_up() -> alternatives_enable_smp(). And in UP case alternatives_smp_module_add() will call alternatives_smp_unlock() that will patch module text before it is updated. > Anyhow, sorry for the noise. On the contrary, I would have missed it. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
