On Fri 2016-12-23 10:24:35, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > index 5efa262..e79ebb5 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/bug.h>
> > > > #include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > #include "patch.h"
> > > > +#include "transition.h"
> > > >
> > > > static LIST_HEAD(klp_ops);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -54,15 +55,53 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
> > > > {
> > > > struct klp_ops *ops;
> > > > struct klp_func *func;
> > > > + int patch_state;
> > > >
> > > > ops = container_of(fops, struct klp_ops, fops);
> > > >
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > +
> > > > func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
> > > > stack_node);
> > > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!func))
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!func)
> > > > goto unlock;
> > >
> > > Why do you removed the WARN_ON_ONCE(), please?
> > >
> > > We still add the function on the stack before registering
> > > the ftrace handler. Also we unregister the ftrace handler
> > > before removing the the last entry from the stack.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, unregister_ftrace_function() calls rcu_synchronize()'
> > > to make sure that no-one is inside the handler once finished.
> > > Mirek knows more about it.
> >
> > Hm, this is news to me. Mirek, please share :-)
>
> Well, I think the whole thing is well described in emails I exchanged with
> Steven few months ago. See [1].
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LNX.2.00.1608081041060.10833@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > > If this is not true, we have a problem. For example,
> > > we call kfree(ops) after unregister_ftrace_function();
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> TL;DR - we should be ok as long as we do not do crazy things in the
> handler, deliberate sleeping for example.
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE() may be crazy too. I think we discussed it long ago and we
> came to an agreement to remove it.
There are definitely situations where this might hurt. For example,
when we redirect a function called under logbuf_lock.
On the other hand, there is a work in progress[1][2] that will mitigate
this risk a lot. Also this warning would be printed only when
something goes wrong. IMHO, it is worth the risk. It will succeed
in 99,999% cases and it might save us some headache when debugging
random crashes of the system.
Anyway, if there is a reason to remove the warning, it should be
described. And if it is not strictly related to this patch, it should
be handled separately.
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161221143605.2272-1-sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx
[2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461333180-2897-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx
Best Regards,
Petr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
