On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:54:47PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> The existing API allows to pass a sample data to initialize the shadow
> data. It works well when the data are position independent. But it fails
> miserably when we need to set a pointer to the shadow structure itself.
>
> Unfortunately, we might need to initialize the pointer surprisingly
> often because of struct list_head. It is even worse because the list
> might be hidden in other common structures, for example, struct mutex,
> struct wait_queue_head.
Can you provide a specific example in the changelog of where this was
needed?
> This patch makes the API more safe. A custom init function and data
> are passed to klp_shadow_*alloc() functions instead of the sample data.
>
> Note that the init_data are not longer a template for the shadow->data.
> It might point to any data that might be necessary when the init
> function is called.
>
> In addition, the newly allocated shadow structure is initialized
> only when it is really used.
I don't understand this sentence. It makes it sound like the init
function is called when you do klp_shadow_get(). However, looking at
the code, the init function is always called after allocation.
> For this, the init function must be
> called under klp_shadow_lock. On one hand, this adds a risk of
> ABBA deadlocks. On the other hand, it allows to do some operations
> safely. For example, we could add the new structure into an
> existing list.
> diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> index 4754f01c1abb..fc7c64ce0992 100644
> --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
> +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> @@ -186,11 +186,20 @@ static inline bool klp_have_reliable_stack(void)
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE);
> }
>
> +struct klp_shadow;
Why is this forward struct declaration needed?
> @@ -150,6 +145,23 @@ static void *__klp_shadow_get_or_alloc(void *obj, unsigned long id, void *data,
> goto exists;
> }
>
> + new_shadow->obj = obj;
> + new_shadow->id = id;
> +
> + if (init_func) {
> + int err;
> +
> + err = init_func(obj, new_shadow->data, init_data);
Am I hallucinating, or will new_shadow->data always be NULL? How did it
even work before?
--
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
