On Fri 2021-11-26 10:20:54, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > On Fri 2021-11-19 10:03:27, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > Add a test for the API which allows the user to specify functions which
> > > are then searched for on any tasks's stack during a transition process.
> > >
> > The approach with debugfs is an interesting trick. Though, I slightly
> > prefer using the scheduled work. The workqueue API looks less tricky
> > to me than sysfs/debugfs API. Also it does not block the module
> > in the init() callback[*]. But I might be biased.
>
> It seemed to me that debugfs gave us more control over the process than
> workqueues, but I do not really care. Could you explain the blocking in
> the init callback? I do not follow.
Good question about the blocking! Please, forget it. I am not sure
why I thought that the module might get blocked in the module_init()
script.
> > Anyway, it might make sense to use the same trick in both situations.
> > It would make it easier to maintain the test modules.
>
> True. So I will rewrite it to workqueues as you are proposing below.
>
> > [*] There is actually a race in the workqueue approach. The module
> > init() callback should wait until the work is really scheduled
> > and sleeping. It might be achieved by similar hand-shake like
> > with @block_transition variable. Or completion API might be
> > even more elegant.
> >
> >
> > > + pr_info("%s exit\n", __func__);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static noinline void child2_function(void)
> > > +{
> > > + pr_info("%s\n", __func__);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static noinline void parent_function(void)
> > > +{
> > > + pr_info("%s enter\n", __func__);
> > > + child_function();
> > > + child2_function();
> >
> > This would deserve some explanation what we try to simulate here
> > and how it is achieved. It is not easy for me even with the background
> > that I have freshly in my mind.
> >
> > Also I think about more descriptive names ;-)
>
> Hey, I thought it was self-explaining :). So, yes, I started with the
> example given in the .fixup thread, but it is not really tied to .cold
> section, jumps or whatever. The setup is just used to test a new API.
> Moreover, the .fixup example is just a one scenario the new API tries to
> solve.
OK, single child() function should be enough for testing the behavior.
We might sleep/wait in the parent().
I think that I was confused by the two child() functions. It looked
like sleeping in a child function was important. And the "same"
name of the two children did not help much to understand and
distinguish the purpose.
> What you propose below, that is function names and comments, is a bit
> confusing for me. Especially if I did not know anything about the original
> issue (which will be the case in a couple of weeks when I forget
> everything).
>
> So I think it I will stick to brevity unless you or someone else really
> insist.
No, I do not resist on the complicated exmaple. When thinking about
it, the easier test case the better. It should be enough to describe
the real-life purpose of the API in the patch that introduces the API.
> I can improve tests description in
> tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test-func-stack.sh if it helps anything.
Yes, please. I miss some top-level descriptions of the tested
functionality, something like:
# Tests for "bla bla" feature.
# It allows to block transition of a process when it is running
# parent() function and only the child() function is livepatched.
# This test does not use the feature. The transition finishes even
# before parent() exits.
# In this test case, the livepatch is instructed to check also
# parent() on stack. The transition must not finish before
# parent() exists.
It would be nice to have these high-level descriptions even in
the test modules.
Best Regards,
Petr
