On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:44:31PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > @@ -347,22 +354,37 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch
> > > > *patch)
> > > >
> > > > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
> > > >
> > > > + klp_init_transition(patch, KLP_PATCHED);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Enforce the order of the func->transition writes in
> > > > + * klp_init_transition() and the ops->func_stack writes in
> > > > + * klp_patch_object(), so that klp_ftrace_handler() will see the
> > > > + * func->transition updates before the handler is registered
> > > > and the
> > > > + * new funcs become visible to the handler.
> > > > + */
> > > > + smp_wmb();
> > > > +
> > > > klp_for_each_object(patch, obj) {
> > > > if (!klp_is_object_loaded(obj))
> > > > continue;
> > > >
> > > > ret = klp_patch_object(obj);
> > > > - if (ret)
> > > > - goto unregister;
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + pr_warn("failed to enable patch '%s'\n",
> > > > + patch->mod->name);
> > > > +
> > > > + klp_unpatch_objects(patch);
> > >
> > > We should call here synchronize_rcu() here as we do
> > > in klp_try_complete_transition(). Some of the affected
> > > functions might have more versions on the stack and we
> > > need to make sure that klp_ftrace_handler() will _not_
> > > see the removed patch on the stack.
> >
> > Even if the handler sees the new func on the stack, the
> > task->patch_state is still KLP_UNPATCHED, so it will still choose the
> > previous version of the function. Or did I miss your point?
>
> The barrier is needed from exactly the same reason as the one
> in klp_try_complete_transition()
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> __klp_enable_patch()
> klp_init_transition()
>
> for_each...
> task->patch_state = KLP_UNPATCHED
>
> for_each...
> func->transition = true
>
> klp_for_each_object()
> klp_patch_object()
> list_add_rcu()
>
> klp_ftrace_handler()
> func = list_first_...()
>
> if (func->transition)
>
>
> ret = klp_patch_object()
> /* error */
> if (ret) {
> klp_unpatch_objects()
>
> list_remove_rcu()
>
> klp_complete_transition()
>
> for_each_....
> func->transition = true
>
> for_each_....
> task->patch_state = PATCH_UNDEFINED
>
> patch_state = current->patch_state;
> WARN_ON_ONCE(patch_state
> ==
> KLP_UNDEFINED);
>
> BANG: The warning is triggered.
>
> => we need to call rcu_synchronize(). It will make sure that
> no ftrace handled will see the removed func on the stack
> and we could clear all the other values.
Makes sense.
Notice in this case that klp_target_state is KLP_PATCHED. Which means
that klp_complete_transition() would not call synchronize_rcu() at the
right time, nor would it call module_put(). It can be fixed with:
@@ -387,7 +389,7 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
pr_warn("failed to enable patch '%s'\n",
patch->mod->name);
- klp_unpatch_objects(patch);
+ klp_target_state = KLP_UNPATCHED;
klp_complete_transition();
return ret;
This assumes that the 'if (klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED)' clause in
klp_try_complete_transition() gets moved to klp_complete_transition() as
you suggested.
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > index 5efa262..1a77f05 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/bug.h>
> > > > #include <linux/printk.h>
> > > > #include "patch.h"
> > > > +#include "transition.h"
> > > >
> > > > static LIST_HEAD(klp_ops);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -54,15 +55,58 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned
> > > > long ip,
> > > > {
> > > > struct klp_ops *ops;
> > > > struct klp_func *func;
> > > > + int patch_state;
> > > >
> > > > ops = container_of(fops, struct klp_ops, fops);
> > > >
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > +
> > > > func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
> > > > stack_node);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * func should never be NULL because preemption should be
> > > > disabled here
> > > > + * and unregister_ftrace_function() does the equivalent of a
> > > > + * synchronize_sched() before the func_stack removal.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!func))
> > > > + goto unlock;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Enforce the order of the ops->func_stack and
> > > > func->transition reads.
> > > > + * The corresponding write barrier is in __klp_enable_patch().
> > > > + */
> > > > + smp_rmb();
> > >
> > > I was curious why the comment did not mention __klp_disable_patch().
> > > It was related to the hours of thinking. I would like to avoid this
> > > in the future and add a comment like.
> > >
> > > * This barrier probably is not needed when the patch is being
> > > * disabled. The patch is removed from the stack in
> > > * klp_try_complete_transition() and there we need to call
> > > * rcu_synchronize() to prevent seeing the patch on the stack
> > > * at all.
> > > *
> > > * Well, it still might be needed to see func->transition
> > > * when the patch is removed and the task is migrated. See
> > > * the write barrier in __klp_disable_patch().
> >
> > Agreed, though as you mentioned earlier, there's also the implicit
> > barrier in klp_update_patch_state(), which would execute first in such a
> > scenario. So I think I'll update the barrier comments in
> > klp_update_patch_state().
>
> You inspired me to a scenario with 3 CPUs:
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
>
> __klp_disable_patch()
>
> klp_init_transition()
>
> func->transition = true
>
> smp_wmb()
>
> klp_start_transition()
>
> set TIF_PATCH_PATCHPENDING
>
> klp_update_patch_state()
>
> task->patch_state
> = KLP_UNPATCHED
>
> smp_mb()
>
> klp_ftrace_handler()
> func = list_...
>
> smp_rmb() /*needed?*/
>
> if (func->transition)
>
I think this isn't possible. Remember the comment I added to
klp_update_patch_state():
* NOTE: If task is not 'current', the caller must ensure the task is inactive.
* Otherwise klp_ftrace_handler() might read the wrong 'patch_state' value.
Right now klp_update_patch_state() is only called for current.
klp_ftrace_handler() on CPU2 would be running in the context of a
different task.
> We need to make sure the CPU3 sees func->transition set. Otherwise,
> it would wrongly use the function from the patch.
>
> So, the description might be:
>
> * Enforce the order of the ops->func_stack and
> * func->transition reads when the patch is enabled.
> * The corresponding write barrier is in __klp_enable_patch().
> *
> * Also make sure that func->transition is visible before
> * TIF_PATCH_PENDING_FLAG is set and the task might get
> * migrated to KLP_UNPATCHED state. The corresponding
> * write barrier is in __klp_disable_patch().
>
>
> By other words, the read barrier here is needed from the same
> reason as the write barrier in __klp_disable_patch().
> > > > +void klp_reverse_transition(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int cpu;
> > > > + struct task_struct *g, *task;
> > > > +
> > > > + klp_transition_patch->enabled = !klp_transition_patch->enabled;
> > > > +
> > > > + klp_target_state = !klp_target_state;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Clear all TIF_PATCH_PENDING flags to prevent races caused by
> > > > + * klp_update_patch_state() running in parallel with
> > > > + * klp_start_transition().
> > > > + */
> > > > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > + for_each_process_thread(g, task)
> > > > + clear_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_PATCH_PENDING);
> > > > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > > > + clear_tsk_thread_flag(idle_task(cpu),
> > > > TIF_PATCH_PENDING);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Let any remaining calls to klp_update_patch_state() complete
> > > > */
> > > > + synchronize_rcu();
> > > > +
> > > > + klp_start_transition();
> > >
> > > Hmm, we should not call klp_try_complete_transition() when
> > > klp_start_transition() is called from here. I can't find a safe
> > > way to cancel klp_transition_work() when we own klp_mutex.
> > > It smells with a possible deadlock.
> > >
> > > I suggest to move move klp_try_complete_transition() outside
> > > klp_start_transition() and explicitely call it from
> > > __klp_disable_patch() and __klp_enabled_patch().
> > > This would fix also the problem with immediate patches, see
> > > klp_start_transition().
> >
> > Agreed. I'll fix it as you suggest and I'll put the mod_delayed_work()
> > call in klp_reverse_transition() again.
>
> There is one small catch. The mod_delayed_work() might cause that two
> works might be scheduled:
>
> + one already running that is waiting for the klp_mutex
> + another one scheduled by that mod_delayed_work()
>
> A solution would be to cancel the work from klp_transition_work_fn()
> if the transition succeeds.
>
> Another possibility would be to do nothing here. The work is
> scheduled very often anyway.
Yes, I think I'll do this, for the sake of simplicity.
--
Josh
