+++ Josh Poimboeuf [29/05/19 12:39 -0500]:
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:29:04PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
+++ Josh Poimboeuf [21/05/19 11:42 -0500]:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:42:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2019 09:16:29 -0500
> > Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmm, t
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 07:29:04PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Josh Poimboeuf [21/05/19 11:42 -0500]:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:42:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 09:16:29 -0500
> > > Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Hmm, this may blow up with lockdep, as
+++ Josh Poimboeuf [21/05/19 11:42 -0500]:
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:42:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2019 09:16:29 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Hmm, this may blow up with lockdep, as I believe we already have a
> > locking dependency of:
> >
> > text_mutex -> ftrace_lo
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 08:06:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:17:21 +0200 (CEST)
> Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > > > From: Josh Poimboeuf
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] livepatch: Fix ftrace module text permissions race
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > I'll try to find some ti
On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:17:21 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > From: Josh Poimboeuf
> > > Subject: [PATCH] livepatch: Fix ftrace module text permissions race
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > I'll try to find some time to test this as well.
>
> Steve, Jessica, any final word on this?
I was und
On Tue, 21 May 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Hm. I suppose using ftrace_lock might be less risky since that lock
> > is only used internally by ftrace (up until now). But I think it
> > would also make less sense because the text_mutex is supposed to
> > protect code patching. And presumab
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:42:27AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> void module_enable_ro(const struct module *mod, bool after_init)
> {
> + lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
> +
This assertion fails, it turns out the module code also calls this
function (oops). I may move the meat of this fu
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:27:47PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> BTW, livepatching folks -- speaking of this window, does it make sense for
> klp_init_object_loaded() to unconditionally frob the module section
> permissions? Should it only bother iff it's going to apply
> relocations/alternatives/p
On 5/20/19 5:19 PM, Joe Lawrence wrote:
On 5/20/19 5:09 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
These two testing scenarios might be interesting to add to our selftests
suite. Can you post or add the source(s) to livepatch-test.ko to the
tarball?
I made the liv
On Tue, 21 May 2019 11:42:27 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Hm. I suppose using ftrace_lock might be less risky since that lock is
> only used internally by ftrace (up until now). But I think it would
> also make less sense because the text_mutex is supposed to protect code
> patching. And pres
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:42:04AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 09:16:29 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, this may blow up with lockdep, as I believe we already have a
> > > locking dependency of:
> > >
> > > text_mutex -> ftrace_lock
> > >
> > > And this will r
On Tue, 21 May 2019 09:16:29 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Hmm, this may blow up with lockdep, as I believe we already have a
> > locking dependency of:
> >
> > text_mutex -> ftrace_lock
> >
> > And this will reverses it. (kprobes appears to take the locks in this
> > order).
> >
> > Perhap
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 05:39:10PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:19:31 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > index a12aff849c04..8259d4ba8b00 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
On Mon, May 20, 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> I think you must have been looking at an old version.
>
> [(v5.2-rc1)] ~/git/linux $ grep jeyu MAINTAINERS
> M:Jessica Yu
Operator error on my part. I was looking at a different directory with
an old branch checked out. Sorry!
> Can you try thi
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:19:31 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index a12aff849c04..8259d4ba8b00 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 02:09:05PM -0700, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > [ fixed jeyu's email address ]
>
> Thank you, the bounce message made it seem like my mail server was
> blocked and not that the address didn't exist.
>
> I think MAINTAINERS needs a
On 5/20/19 5:09 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
[ fixed jeyu's email address ]
Thank you, the bounce message made it seem like my mail server was
blocked and not that the address didn't exist.
I think MAINTAINERS needs an update since it still has the @r
On Mon, May 20, 2019, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> [ fixed jeyu's email address ]
Thank you, the bounce message made it seem like my mail server was
blocked and not that the address didn't exist.
I think MAINTAINERS needs an update since it still has the @redhat.com
address.
> On 5/20/19 3:49 PM, Joha
[ fixed jeyu's email address ]
On 5/20/19 3:49 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
[ ... snip ... ]
I have put together a test case that can reproduce the crash using
KVM. The tarball includes a minimal kernel and initramfs, along with
a script to run qemu and the .config used to build the kernel. By
d
19 matches
Mail list logo
