On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 12:30 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:55:40PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > On a kernel built with the 2 instruction version this will fault when the
> > function we're looking at is located at the beginning of a page. Because
> > instruction[-3] goes off the front of the mapping.
> >
> > We can probably fix that. But it's still a bit dicey.
>
> Not necessarily. Now that it's a separate function, it can be nested a bit deeper,
> so we don't take chances on compiler optimisation:
>
> if (instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_STD_LR) /* where should R0 come from? there must be... */
> {
> if (instruction[-3] == PPC_INST_MFLR)
> return 1;
> }
> else if (instruction[-2] == PPC_INST_MFLR)
> return 1;
> return 0;
Yeah true that should work in practice.
It's still trivial to construct a module that will oops the loader, but I guess
that's always been true.
> > I'm wondering if we want to just say we only support the 2 instruction version.
> > Currently that means GCC 6 only, or a distro compiler with the backport of
> > e95d0248dace. But we could also ask GCC to backport it to 4.9 and 5.
>
> IMHO that's a too weak reason for a too strong limitation. OTOH getting everyone
> to use the 2 insn version sounds appealing...
Fair enough. I'm just trying to manage the complexity explosion.
I'd certainly advocate that you backport it to your toolchain.
> Is e95d0248dace self-sufficient or does it depend on other improvements?
AFAIK it's self sufficient, it just deletes a single line. I'll ask the GCC
guys tomorrow if they can backport it if you don't beat me to it :)
cheers
--
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
