On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 07:36:22PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> at 10:11 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > at 1:59 AM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 01:11:42 -0700
> >> Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Use lockdep to ensure that text_mutex is taken when text_poke() is
> >>> called.
> >>>
> >>> Actually it is not always taken, specifically when it is called by kgdb,
> >>> so take the lock in these cases.
> >>
> >> Can we really take a mutex in kgdb context?
> >>
> >> kgdb_arch_remove_breakpoint
> >> <- dbg_deactivate_sw_breakpoints
> >> <- kgdb_reenter_check
> >> <- kgdb_handle_exception
> >> <- __kgdb_notify
> >> <- kgdb_ll_trap
> >> <- do_int3
> >> <- kgdb_notify
> >> <- die notifier
> >>
> >> kgdb_arch_set_breakpoint
> >> <- dbg_activate_sw_breakpoints
> >> <- kgdb_reenter_check
> >> <- kgdb_handle_exception
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Both seems called in exception context, so we can not take a mutex lock.
> >> I think kgdb needs a special path.
> >
> > You are correct, but I don’t want a special path. Presumably text_mutex is
> > guaranteed not to be taken according to the code.
> >
> > So I guess the only concern is lockdep. Do you see any problem if I change
> > mutex_lock() into mutex_trylock()? It should always succeed, and I can add a
> > warning and a failure path if it fails for some reason.
>
> Err.. This will not work. I think I will drop this patch, since I cannot
> find a proper yet simple assertion. Creating special path just for the
> assertion seems wrong.
It's probably worth expanding the comment for text_poke() to call out
the kgdb case and reference kgdb_arch_{set,remove}_breakpoint(), whose
code and comments make it explicitly clear why its safe for them to
call text_poke() without acquiring the lock. Might prevent someone
from going down this path again in the future.
