On 10/30/2013 08:12 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jinag Liu,
>
> Sorry for the delayed review, I've been travelling.
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:19:56PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> From: Jiang Liu <jiang....@huawei.com>
>
> If I try and email you at your Huawei address, I get a bounce from the mail
> server. Is that expected? If so, it's not very helpful from a commit log
> perspective if you use that address as the author on your patches.
>
Hi Will,
Sorry for the inconvenience. I have left Huawei recently and
have had a vacation last two weeks. I will use my gmail account next
time.
>> Introduce three interfaces to patch kernel and module code:
>> aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync():
>> patch code without synchronization, it's caller's responsibility
>> to synchronize all CPUs if needed.
>> aarch64_insn_patch_text_sync():
>> patch code and always synchronize with stop_machine()
>> aarch64_insn_patch_text():
>> patch code and synchronize with stop_machine() if needed
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang....@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Jiang Liu <liu...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h | 19 ++++++++-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c | 91
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> index 7499490..7a69491 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> @@ -71,8 +71,25 @@ enum aarch64_insn_hint_op {
>>
>> bool aarch64_insn_is_nop(u32 insn);
>>
>> -enum aarch64_insn_encoding_class aarch64_get_insn_class(u32 insn);
>> +/*
>> + * In ARMv8-A, A64 instructions have a fixed length of 32 bits and are
>> always
>> + * little-endian.
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline u32 aarch64_insn_read(void *addr)
>> +{
>> + return le32_to_cpu(*(u32 *)addr);
>> +}
>>
>> +static __always_inline void aarch64_insn_write(void *addr, u32 insn)
>> +{
>> + *(u32 *)addr = cpu_to_le32(insn);
>> +}
>
> I wouldn't bother with these helpers. You should probably be using
> probe_kernel_address or similar, then doing the endianness swabbing on the
> return value in-line.
How about keeping and refining aarch64_insn_read/write interfaces
by using probe_kernel_address()? I think they may be used in other
places when supporting big endian ARM64 kernel.
>
>> +enum aarch64_insn_encoding_class aarch64_get_insn_class(u32 insn);
>> bool aarch64_insn_hotpatch_safe(u32 old_insn, u32 new_insn);
>>
>> +int aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(void *addr, u32 insn);
>> +int aarch64_insn_patch_text_sync(void *addrs[], u32 insns[], int cnt);
>> +int aarch64_insn_patch_text(void *addrs[], u32 insns[], int cnt);
>> +
>> #endif /* __ASM_INSN_H */
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
>> index f5b779f..3879db4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/insn.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@
>> */
>> #include <linux/compiler.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>> +#include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
>> #include <asm/insn.h>
>>
>> static int aarch64_insn_encoding_class[] = {
>> @@ -88,3 +91,91 @@ bool __kprobes aarch64_insn_hotpatch_safe(u32 old_insn,
>> u32 new_insn)
>> return __aarch64_insn_hotpatch_safe(old_insn) &&
>> __aarch64_insn_hotpatch_safe(new_insn);
>> }
>> +
>> +int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(void *addr, u32 insn)
>> +{
>> + u32 *tp = addr;
>> +
>> + /* A64 instructions must be word aligned */
>> + if ((uintptr_t)tp & 0x3)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + aarch64_insn_write(tp, insn);
>> + flush_icache_range((uintptr_t)tp, (uintptr_t)tp + sizeof(u32));
>
> sizeof(insn) is clearer here.
>
Will make this change in next version.
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct aarch64_insn_patch {
>> + void **text_addrs;
>> + u32 *new_insns;
>> + int insn_cnt;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(text_patch_lock);
>> +static atomic_t text_patch_id;
>> +
>> +static int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_cb(void *arg)
>> +{
>> + int i, ret = 0;
>> + struct aarch64_insn_patch *pp = arg;
>> +
>> + if (atomic_read(&text_patch_id) == smp_processor_id()) {
>
> You could actually pass in the test_patch_id as zero-initialised parameter
> to this function (i.e. it points to something on the stack of the guy
> issuing the stop_machine). Then you do an inc_return here. If you see zero,
> you go ahead and do the patching.
Good suggestion!
Function stop_machine() already has a mutex to serialize all callers,
so we don't need explicitly serialization here. Will simplify the
code in next version.
>
>> + for (i = 0; ret == 0 && i < pp->insn_cnt; i++)
>> + ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(pp->text_addrs[i],
>> + pp->new_insns[i]);
>> + /* Let other CPU continue */
>> + atomic_set(&text_patch_id, -1);
>
> You're relying on the barrier in flush_icache_range to order this
> atomic_set. I think you should add a comment describing that, because it's
> very subtle.
How about an explicitly smp_wmb() here? That would be more
maintainable.
>
>> + } else {
>> + while (atomic_read(&text_patch_id) != -1)
>> + cpu_relax();
>> + isb();
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> I don't think you need the isb -- the exception return should do the trick
> (but again, a comment would be useful).
stop_machine() is implemented by thread scheduling instead of cross CPU
function call(IPI), so there may be no "eret" after returning from
this callback function. So used an "isb" here.
>
>> +
>> +int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_sync(void *addrs[], u32 insns[], int
>> cnt)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + struct aarch64_insn_patch patch = {
>> + .text_addrs = addrs,
>> + .new_insns = insns,
>> + .insn_cnt = cnt,
>> + };
>> +
>> + if (cnt <= 0)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&text_patch_lock);
>
> Again, if you use a loacl variable, I don't think you need the mutex. What
> do you think?
Sure, will make the change.
>
>> + atomic_set(&text_patch_id, smp_processor_id());
>> + ret = stop_machine(aarch64_insn_patch_text_cb, &patch, cpu_online_mask);
>
> Instead of doing this, why not instead call aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync
> inline, then call kick_all_cpus_sync immediately afterwards, without the
> need to stop_machine.
Sandeepa, who is working on kprobe for ARM64, needs the stop_machine()
mechanism to synchronize all online CPUs, so it's a preparation for
kprobe.
Thanks!
Gerry
>
> Will
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
