Le 09/12/2022 à 19:30, Song Liu a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 4:55 AM Miroslav Benes <mbenes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> first thank you for taking over and I also appologize for not replying
>> much sooner.
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022, Song Liu wrote:
>>
>>> From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@xxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Josh reported a bug:
>>>
>>> When the object to be patched is a module, and that module is
>>> rmmod'ed and reloaded, it fails to load with:
>>>
>>> module: x86/modules: Skipping invalid relocation target, existing value is nonzero for type 2, loc 00000000ba0302e9, val ffffffffa03e293c
>>> livepatch: failed to initialize patch 'livepatch_nfsd' for module 'nfsd' (-8)
>>> livepatch: patch 'livepatch_nfsd' failed for module 'nfsd', refusing to load module 'nfsd'
>>>
>>> The livepatch module has a relocation which references a symbol
>>> in the _previous_ loading of nfsd. When apply_relocate_add()
>>> tries to replace the old relocation with a new one, it sees that
>>> the previous one is nonzero and it errors out.
>>>
>>> On ppc64le, we have a similar issue:
>>>
>>> module_64: livepatch_nfsd: Expected nop after call, got e8410018 at e_show+0x60/0x548 [livepatch_nfsd]
>>> livepatch: failed to initialize patch 'livepatch_nfsd' for module 'nfsd' (-8)
>>> livepatch: patch 'livepatch_nfsd' failed for module 'nfsd', refusing to load module 'nfsd'
>>>
>>> He also proposed three different solutions. We could remove the error
>>> check in apply_relocate_add() introduced by commit eda9cec4c9a1
>>> ("x86/module: Detect and skip invalid relocations"). However the check
>>> is useful for detecting corrupted modules.
>>>
>>> We could also deny the patched modules to be removed. If it proved to be
>>> a major drawback for users, we could still implement a different
>>> approach. The solution would also complicate the existing code a lot.
>>>
>>> We thus decided to reverse the relocation patching (clear all relocation
>>> targets on x86_64). The solution is not
>>> universal and is too much arch-specific, but it may prove to be simpler
>>> in the end.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@xxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Petr has commented on the code aspects. I will just add that s390x was not
>> dealt with at the time because there was no live patching support for
>> s390x back then if I remember correctly and my notes do not lie. The same
>> applies to powerpc32. I think that both should be fixed as well with this
>> patch. It might also help to clean up the ifdeffery in the patch a bit.
>
> I don't have test environments for s390 and powerpc, so I really don't know
> whether I am doing something sane for them.
>
> Would you have time to finish these parts? (Or maybe the whole patch..)
Setting up a powerpc test environment is fairly easy with QEMU.
Some information below:
- https://github.com/linuxppc/wiki/wiki
- https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/Platforms/PowerPC
Christophe
