On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:09:08AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:47:29 -0500
> > > Releasing the lock in a separate function seems a bit surprising and
> > > fragile, would it be possible to do something like this instead?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c
> > > index b38c388d1087..89ea1af6fd13 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c
> > > @@ -37,15 +37,21 @@
> > > int ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare(void)
> > > {
> > > mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
> > > +
> > > set_kernel_text_rw();
> > > set_all_modules_text_rw();
> > > +
> > > + mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > int ftrace_arch_code_modify_post_process(void)
> > > {
> > > + mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
> > > +
> > > set_all_modules_text_ro();
> > > set_kernel_text_ro();
> > > +
> > > mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > I agree with Josh on this. As the original bug was the race between
> > ftrace and live patching / modules changing the text from ro to rw and
> > vice versa. Just protecting the update to the text permissions is more
> > robust, and should be more self documenting when we need to handle
> > other architectures for this.
>
> How is that supposed to work?
>
> ftrace
> prepare()
> setrw()
> setro()
> patch <- FAIL
/me dodges frozen shark
You are right of course. My brain has apparently already shut off for
the day.
Maybe a comment or two would help though.
--
Josh
