On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:28:28PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > Move functions related to the actual patching of functions and objects
> > into a new patch.c file.
>
> I am definitely for splitting the code to several different files.
> Otherwise it would be soon unmanageable. However I don't know if this
> patch is the best possible. Maybe it is just nitpicking so let's not spend
> too much time on this :)
>
> Without this patch there are several different groups of functions in
> core.c:
> 1. infrastructure such as global variables, klp_init and some helper
> functions
> 2. (un)registration and initialization of the patch
> 3. enable/disable with patching/unpatching, ftrace handler
> 4. sysfs code
> 5. module notifier
> 6. relocations
>
> I would move sysfs code away to separate file.
I'm not sure about moving the sysfs code to its own file, mainly because
of enabled_store():
1. It needs the klp_mutex. It's really nice and clean to keep the
klp_mutex a static variable in core.c (which I plan on doing in v2 of
the patch set).
2. It's one of the main entry points into the klp code, along with
register/unregister and enable/disable. It makes a lot of sense to
keep all of those entry points in the same file IMO.
> If we decide to move patching code I think it would make sense to move
> enable/disable functions along with it. Or perhaps __klp_enable_patch and
> __klp_disable_patch only. It is possible though that the result would be
> much worse.
I would vote to keep enable/disable in core.c for the same reasons as
stated above for enabled_store(). It's possible that
__klp_enable_patch() and __klp_disable_patch() could be moved elsewhere.
Personally I like them where they are, since they call into both
"transition" functions and "patch" functions.
So, big surprise, I agree with my own code splitting decisions ;-)
>
> Or we can move some other group of functions...
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.h b/kernel/livepatch/patch.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..bb34bd3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> > +#include <linux/livepatch.h>
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * struct klp_ops - structure for tracking registered ftrace ops structs
> > + *
> > + * A single ftrace_ops is shared between all enabled replacement functions
> > + * (klp_func structs) which have the same old_addr. This allows the switch
> > + * between function versions to happen instantaneously by updating the klp_ops
> > + * struct's func_stack list. The winner is the klp_func at the top of the
> > + * func_stack (front of the list).
> > + *
> > + * @node: node for the global klp_ops list
> > + * @func_stack: list head for the stack of klp_func's (active func is on top)
> > + * @fops: registered ftrace ops struct
> > + */
> > +struct klp_ops {
> > + struct list_head node;
> > + struct list_head func_stack;
> > + struct ftrace_ops fops;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct klp_ops *klp_find_ops(unsigned long old_addr);
> > +
> > +extern int klp_patch_object(struct klp_object *obj);
> > +extern void klp_unpatch_object(struct klp_object *obj);
>
> Is there a reason why klp_find_ops is not extern and the other two
> functions are? I think it is redundant and it is better to be consistent.
Good catch, thanks.
--
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
