On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:22:06PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 11:49 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 03:10:00PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> +Test 6
> >> +------
> >> +
> >> +Test a scenario where a vmlinux pre-patch callback returns a non-zero
> >> +status (ie, failure):
> >> +
> >> +- load target module
> >> +- load livepatch -ENODEV
> >> +- unload target module
> >> +
> >> +First load a target module:
> >> +
> >> + % insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-mod.ko
> >> + [ 80.740520] livepatch_callbacks_mod: livepatch_callbacks_mod_init
> >> +
> >> +Load the livepatch module, setting its 'pre_patch_ret' value to -19
> >> +(-ENODEV). When its vmlinux pre-patch callback executed, this status
> >> +code will propagate back to the module-loading subsystem. The result is
> >> +that the insmod command refuses to load the livepatch module:
> >> +
> >> + % insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.ko pre_patch_ret=-19
> >> + [ 82.747326] livepatch: enabling patch 'livepatch_callbacks_demo'
> >> + [ 82.747743] livepatch: 'livepatch_callbacks_demo': initializing unpatching transition
> >> + [ 82.747767] livepatch_callbacks_demo: pre_patch_callback: vmlinux
> >> + [ 82.748237] livepatch: pre-patch callback failed for object 'vmlinux'
> >> + [ 82.748637] livepatch: failed to enable patch 'livepatch_callbacks_demo'
> >> + [ 82.749059] livepatch: 'livepatch_callbacks_demo': canceling transition, unpatching
> >> + [ 82.749060] livepatch: 'livepatch_callbacks_demo': completing unpatching transition
> >> + [ 82.749177] livepatch_callbacks_demo: post_unpatch_callback: livepatch_callbacks_mod -> [MODULE_STATE_LIVE] Normal state
> >> + [ 82.749868] livepatch: 'livepatch_callbacks_demo': unpatching complete
> >> + [ 82.765809] insmod: ERROR: could not insert module samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.ko: No such device
> >> +
> >> + % rmmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-mod.ko
> >> + [ 84.774238] livepatch_callbacks_mod: livepatch_callbacks_mod_exit
> >
> > First off, this documentation is very nice because it clarifies all the
> > callback scenarios and edge cases.
> >
> > The above situation still seems a little odd to me. If I understand
> > correctly, the target module was never patched, and its pre_patch
> > callback was never called. But its post_unpatch callback *was* called.
> > That doesn't seem right.
>
> Ah, this does look to be a bug.
>
> > Maybe we should change the condition a little bit. Currently it's:
> >
> > No post-patch, pre-unpatch, or post-unpatch callbacks will be executed
> > for a given klp_object if its pre-patch callback returned non-zero
> > status.
> >
> > I think that might have been my idea, but seeing the above case makes it
> > clear that it's not quite right.
>
> It could have been correct if the code differentiated between a
> never-run pre_patch_status of 0 (by kzalloc) and a successful
> pre_patch_status of 0 (by callback return), I think.
>
> > Maybe it should instead be:
> >
> > No post-patch, pre-unpatch, or post-unpatch callbacks will be executed
> > for a given klp_object if the object failed to patch, due to a failed
> > pre_patch callback or for any other reason.
> >
> > If the object did successfully patch, but the patch transition never
> > started for some reason (e.g., if another object failed to patch),
> > only the post-unpatch callback will be called.
>
> That description sounds correct...
>
> > So then, instead of tracking whether the pre-patch callback succeeded,
> > we just need to track whether the object was patched (which we already
> > do, with obj->patched).
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I think this would only work if there was a sticky
> "obj->was_ever_patched" variable. We moved the post-unpatch-callback to
> the very end of klp_complete_transition()... by that point, obj->patched
> will have already been cleared by klp_unpatch_objects.
>
> We could maybe move obj->patched assignments out to encapsulate the pre
> and post callbacks... but I would need to think about that a while. It
> seems pretty clear and symmetric as it is today (immediately set in
> klp_(un)patch_object().
>
> Perhaps a more careful checking of obj->pre_patch_callback_status is all
> we need? (I can't think of anything more succinct than adding a
> obj->pre_patch_callback_done variable to the mix.)
Makes sense. I think you're right that obj->patched wouldn't work.
But there's one more weird case I didn't mention. If the patch has a
post-unpatch callback, but it doesn't have a pre-patch callback, then
'obj->pre_patch_callback_done' would never get set and the post-unpatch
callback would never get called, even if the patch was successful.
So instead of 'obj->pre_patch_callback_done', how about
'obj->callbacks_enabled'?
It could be set in the following cases:
a) if the object has a pre_patch callback, set obj->callbacks_enabled
after the pre_patch callback succeeds;
b) else, if the patch does *not* have a pre_patch callback, set
obj->callbacks_enabled after klp_patch_object() succeeds.
And the variable would need to be cleared after the post_unpatch
callback was run.
It's a bit complicated, but that seems to be the most logicial behavior
as far as I can tell.
Thoughts?
--
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
