From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc: jeyu@redhat.com, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 12:27:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170523172757.mo4piel6i5svs2ux@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170518120043.7205-4-mbenes@suse.cz>
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 02:00:43PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptibly, it could
> block the whole transition process indefinitely. Thus it may be useful
> to clear its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to allow the process to finish.
>
> Admin can do that now by writing 2 to force sysfs attribute in livepatch
> sysfs directory. TIF_PATCH_PENDING is then cleared for all tasks and the
> transition can finish successfully.
>
> Important note! Use wisely. Admin must be sure that it is safe to
> execute such action. This means that it must be checked that by doing so
> the consistency model guarantees are not violated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
These patches look good to me. Just some minor comments.
> ---
> include/linux/livepatch.h | 1 +
> kernel/livepatch/core.c | 3 +++
> kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> kernel/livepatch/transition.h | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> index 43cfeebeb42b..b567208a1c6e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
> +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>
> /* values for sysfs force attribute */
> #define KLP_FORCE_FAKE 1
> +#define KLP_FORCE_UNMARK 2
>
> /* task patch states */
> #define KLP_UNDEFINED -1
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> index bb3b78fa7d2b..9bc1103348c9 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -469,6 +469,9 @@ static ssize_t force_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> case KLP_FORCE_FAKE:
> klp_send_fake_signal();
> break;
> + case KLP_FORCE_UNMARK:
> + klp_unmark_tasks();
> + break;
I think the naming could be a little clearer, and more consistent. What
do you think about:
KLP_FORCE_SIGNALS -> klp_force_signals()
KLP_FORCE_TRANSITIONS -> klp_force_transitions()
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> index bb61aaa196d3..d057a34510e6 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> @@ -591,3 +591,19 @@ void klp_send_fake_signal(void)
> }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * Drop TIF_PATCH_PENDING of all tasks on admin's request. This forces an
> + * existing transition to finish.
> + */
> +void klp_unmark_tasks(void)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *g, *task;
> +
> + pr_warn("all tasks marked as migrated on admin's request\n");
The user might not know what migrated means. How about "forcing
remaining tasks to the patched state" or something similar?
> +
> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + for_each_process_thread(g, task)
> + klp_update_patch_state(task);
> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
So klp_update_patch_state() has the following comment:
* 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.
This code doesn't ensure the task is inactive. But I think that's ok as
long as we document the fact that this could break the consistency
model, right?
On a related note, I think the new sysfs entry should also be documented
in Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt somewhere.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-23 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-18 12:00 [PATCH 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 12:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add " Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 13:05 ` Libor Pechacek
2017-05-18 13:20 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 12:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 13:10 ` Libor Pechacek
2017-05-18 13:20 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 16:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-05-18 18:14 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 19:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2017-05-19 7:51 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-23 17:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-05-24 8:31 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 12:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish Miroslav Benes
2017-05-18 13:16 ` Libor Pechacek
2017-05-18 13:22 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-23 17:27 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2017-05-24 8:36 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-24 13:06 ` Petr Mladek
2017-05-24 14:15 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-24 15:09 ` Petr Mladek
2017-05-25 12:59 ` Miroslav Benes
2017-05-25 16:03 ` Petr Mladek
2017-05-26 17:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-05-29 12:28 ` Petr Mladek
2017-05-30 12:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-05-26 17:38 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-05-29 9:26 ` Miroslav Benes
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=20170523172757.mo4piel6i5svs2ux@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jeyu@redhat.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=pmladek@suse.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®