On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:14PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Last, sending the fake signal is not automatic. It is done only when
> > admin requests it by writing 1 to force sysfs attribute in livepatch
> > sysfs directory.
> 
> 'writing 1' -> 'writing "signal"'
> 
> (unless you take my suggestion to change to two separate sysfs files)

I'll take two separate sysfs files instead.
 
> > @@ -468,7 +468,12 @@ static ssize_t force_store(struct kobject *kobj, 
> > struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> >             return -EINVAL;
> >     }
> >  
> > -   return -EINVAL;
> > +   if (!memcmp("signal", buf, min(sizeof("signal")-1, count)))
> > +           klp_force_signals();
> 
> Any reason why you can't just do a strcmp()?

Not really IIRC. I just borrowed the code from 
mm/huge_memory.c:enabled_store().

> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > @@ -577,3 +577,43 @@ void klp_copy_process(struct task_struct *child)
> >  
> >     /* TIF_PATCH_PENDING gets copied in setup_thread_stack() */
> >  }
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Sends a fake signal to all non-kthread tasks with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set.
> > + * Kthreads with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set are woken up. Only admin can 
> > request this
> > + * action currently.
> > + */
> > +void klp_force_signals(void)
> > +{
> > +   struct task_struct *g, *task;
> > +
> > +   pr_notice("signalling remaining tasks\n");
> 
> As a native US speaker with possible OCD spelling tendencies, it bothers
> me to see "signalling" with two l's instead of one.  According to
> Google, the UK spelling of the word has two l's, so maybe it's not a
> typo.  I'll forgive you if you don't fix it :-)

If it bothers you, I'll fix it. As a non-native speaker, I can live with 
both.

> > +
> > +   read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +   for_each_process_thread(g, task) {
> > +           if (!klp_patch_pending(task))
> > +                   continue;
> > +
> > +           /*
> > +            * There is a small race here. We could see TIF_PATCH_PENDING
> > +            * set and decide to wake up a kthread or send a fake signal.
> > +            * Meanwhile the task could migrate itself and the action
> > +            * would be meaningless. It is not serious though.
> > +            */
> > +           if (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) {
> > +                   /*
> > +                    * Wake up a kthread which still has not been migrated.
> > +                    */
> > +                   wake_up_process(task);
> > +           } else {
> > +                   /*
> > +                    * Send fake signal to all non-kthread tasks which are
> > +                    * still not migrated.
> > +                    */
> > +                   spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> > +                   signal_wake_up(task, 0);
> > +                   spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> > +           }
> > +   }
> > +   read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> 
> I can't remember if we talked about this before, is it possible to also
> signal/wake the idle tasks?

Jiri mentioned that in his email. It is not that easy. Take a look at 
pick_next_task() in kernel/sched/core.c. idle_sched_class is always the 
last one to be checked. Of course we could do something like this 
there...

if (klp_patch_pending(rq->idle)) {
        p = idle_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev);
        
        return p;
}

... but people may be watching, so I didn't say anything.

Thanks,
Miroslav

Reply via email to