On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:45 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 06:36:04PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > > > [ 81.261748] copy_process+0xfdc/0xfd58 [livepatch_special_static] > > > > > > Does that copy_process+0xfdc/0xfd58 resolve to this line in > > > copy_process()? > > > > > > refcount_inc(¤t->signal->sigcnt); > > > > > > Maybe the klp rela reference to 'current' is bogus, or resolving to the > > > wrong address somehow? > > > > It resolves the following line. > > > > p->signal->tty = tty_kref_get(current->signal->tty); > > > > I am not quite sure how 'current' should be resolved. > > Hm, on arm64 it looks like the value of 'current' is stored in the > SP_EL0 register. So I guess that shouldn't need any relocations. > > > The size of copy_process (0xfd58) is wrong. It is only about > > 5.5kB in size. Also, the copy_process function in the .ko file > > looks very broken. I will try a few more things. When I try each step of kpatch-build, the copy_process function looks reasonable (according to gdb-disassemble) in fork.o and output.o. However, copy_process looks weird in livepatch-special-static.o, which is generated by ld: ld -EL -maarch64linux -z norelro -z noexecstack --no-warn-rwx-segments -T ././kpatch.lds -r -o livepatch-special-static.o ./patch-hook.o ./output.o I have attached these files to the email. I am not sure whether the email server will let them through. Indu, does this look like an issue with ld? Thanks, Song
Attachment:
patch-hook.o
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
output.o
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
livepatch-special-static.o
Description: Binary data