From: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] s390/maccess: Remove spinlock from __s390_kernel_write()
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 21:59:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11f7072d-3c4b-4ed5-9954-49c39a012d8b@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261027143030.3154657-11-hca@linux.ibm.com>
On 10/27/26 15:30, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> The spinlock in __s390_kernel_write() was introduced to serialize the
> read-modify-write sequence against concurrent callers. Now that all
> runtime callers of s390_kernel_write() hold the text_mutex, the
> spinlock is not required anymore.
>
> Replace it with preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() and sync_core().
> Previously, CPU serialization was implicitly done by other
> instructions. Make this explicit with sync_core() instead of
> relying on that.
>
> Preemption is disabled so that sync_core() issues the CPU serialization
> instruction on the same CPU that executed the stores. This completes all
> previous stores and makes them visible to other CPUs.
Doesn't preemption happen only via interrupts, which always serialize?
> Other CPUs need to perform CPU serialization, e.g. with text_poke_sync(),
> to discard already prefetched instructions.
>
> To verify that text_mutex is held instead of the spinlock, add a
> lockdep_assert_held() call to s390_kernel_write(). To make that work
> a change to the kprobes code is required:
>
> swap_instruction(), which calls s390_kernel_write(), may be called in
> stop_machine() context.
> For that case the task which calls s390_kernel_write() is not the task
> which called stop_machine() - lockdep_assert_held() will report that
> text_mutex is not held by the current task, even though text_mutex is
> held by the stop_machine() caller. Exclusive text write access is
> guaranteed.
> Work around that by calling the non-checking __s390_kernel_write(),
> and add lockdep_assert_held() checks to arch_arm_kprobe() and
> arch_disarm_kprobe().
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/include/asm/text-patching.h | 7 +++++--
> arch/s390/kernel/kprobes.c | 4 +++-
> arch/s390/mm/maccess.c | 8 +++-----
> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/text-patching.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/text-patching.h
> index c2f87f20ff97..a382a3e7c2f8 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/text-patching.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/text-patching.h
> @@ -19,9 +19,12 @@ void *__s390_kernel_write(void *dst, const void *src, size_t size);
>
> static inline void *s390_kernel_write(void *dst, const void *src, size_t size)
> {
> - if (__is_defined(__DECOMPRESSOR))
> - return memcpy(dst, src, size);
> +#ifdef __DECOMPRESSOR
> + return memcpy(dst, src, size);
> +#else
> + lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
> return __s390_kernel_write(dst, src, size);
> +#endif
> }
I assume #ifdef is required because lockdep_assert_held() is not
available in decompressor and there are no stubs?
Anyhow:
Reviewed-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
[...]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-28 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-27 14:30 [PATCH v2 00/10] s390: Consistent usage of text_mutex Heiko Carstens
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] s390/jump_label: Serialize text patching with text_mutex Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 10:50 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] s390/ftrace: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 10:54 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] s390/bpf: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 10:56 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] s390/runtime-const: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 10:58 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-28 11:09 ` Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 12:22 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-28 13:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] s390/module: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 10:59 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] s390/stackprotector: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 12:23 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] s390/nospec-branch: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 12:24 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] s390/alternative: " Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 12:25 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] s390/uaccess: Move s390_kernel_write() to asm/text-patching.h Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 12:26 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2026-10-27 14:30 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] s390/maccess: Remove spinlock from __s390_kernel_write() Heiko Carstens
2026-10-28 20:59 ` Ilya Leoshkevich [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=11f7072d-3c4b-4ed5-9954-49c39a012d8b@linux.ibm.com \
--to=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®