Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2017-05-18 14:00:43, 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_P

Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 02:00:42PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > @@ -551,3 +551,43 @@ void klp_copy_process(struct task_struct *child) > > > > /* TIF_PATCH_PENDING gets copied in setup_thread_stack() */ > > }

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 02:00:42PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > @@ -551,3 +551,43 @@ void klp_copy_process(struct task_struct *child) > > > > /* TIF_PATCH_PENDING gets copied in setup_thread_stack() */ > > }

Re: [PATCH 2/6] module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all()

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The module list has been using RCU in a lot of other calls > for a while now, we just overlooked changing this one over to > use RCU. > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez > --- > kernel/module.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1

Re: [PATCH 2/6] module: use list_for_each_entry_rcu() on find_module_all()

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The module list has been using RCU in a lot of other calls > for a while now, we just overlooked changing this one over to > use RCU. > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez > --- > kernel/module.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

> > If not, we get back to exit_to_usermode_loop() and TIF_PATCH_PENDING is > > cleared. Yes, it is true that TIF_SIGPENDING is still set and we get to > > do_signal() once more. But for the last time. > > Yes, slightly sub-optimal but not really wrong and you can swap > do_signal() and

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

> > If not, we get back to exit_to_usermode_loop() and TIF_PATCH_PENDING is > > cleared. Yes, it is true that TIF_SIGPENDING is still set and we get to > > do_signal() once more. But for the last time. > > Yes, slightly sub-optimal but not really wrong and you can swap > do_signal() and

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before calling a stack trace

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:48:55 +0200 (CEST) > Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rost...@go

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before calling a stack trace

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:48:55 +0200 (CEST) > Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" > > > > > > As

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I didn't see other patches in series, not sure I understand... There is nothing relevant to this patch, I think. I did not want to bother you with it. > On 05/18, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > The very safe marking is done in

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I didn't see other patches in series, not sure I understand... There is nothing relevant to this patch, I think. I did not want to bother you with it. > On 05/18, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > The very safe marking is done in

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before calling a stack trace

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" > > As stack tracing now requires "rcu watching", force RCU to be watching when > recording a stack trace. > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170512172449.879684...@goodmis.org > > Cc: "Paul

Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before calling a stack trace

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" > > As stack tracing now requires "rcu watching", force RCU to be watching when > recording a stack trace. > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170512172449.879684...@goodmis.org > > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:43, Miroslav Benes wrote: > [...] > > 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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:43, Miroslav Benes wrote: > [...] > > 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

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:42, Miroslav Benes wrote: > [...] > > --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h > > +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h > > @@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ > > > > #include > > > > +/* values for sysf

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:42, Miroslav Benes wrote: > [...] > > --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h > > +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h > > @@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ > > > > #include > > > > +/* values for sysf

Re: [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:41, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > + pr_info("no patching in progress. Force not allowed\n"); > > proposing smoother wording and information sharing > pr_info("no patching in p

Re: [PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Libor Pechacek wrote: > On Thu 18-05-17 14:00:41, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > + pr_info("no patching in progress. Force not allowed\n"); > > proposing smoother wording and information sharing > pr_info("no patching in p

[PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

till it continues again (is not traced anymore). 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. Cc: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz>

[PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> --- 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

[PATCH 2/3] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks

till it continues again (is not traced anymore). 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. Cc: Oleg Nesterov Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes --- include/linux/livepatch.h | 3

[PATCH 3/3] livepatch: force transition process to finish

-by: Miroslav Benes --- 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

[PATCH 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

clearing of the flag. Miroslav Benes (3): livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks livepatch: force transition process to finish Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch | 9 include/linux/livepatch.h| 4

[PATCH 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

clearing of the flag. Miroslav Benes (3): livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks livepatch: force transition process to finish Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch | 9 include/linux/livepatch.h| 4

[PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute

we omit the lock here. The resulting race window is harmless (using force when there is no transaction running). Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> --- Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch | 9 + kernel/livepatch/core.c

[PATCH 1/3] livepatch: Add force sysfs attribute

we omit the lock here. The resulting race window is harmless (using force when there is no transaction running). Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes --- Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch | 9 + kernel/livepatch/core.c | 45 2 files

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch/rcu: Warn when system consistency is broken in RCU code

On Mon, 8 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2017 14:47:29 -0500 > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > Although you should have: > > > > > > if (WARN_ONCE(!rcu_is_watching, > > > "Livepatch ...")) > > > return; > > > > > > or something

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch/rcu: Warn when system consistency is broken in RCU code

On Mon, 8 May 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2017 14:47:29 -0500 > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > Although you should have: > > > > > > if (WARN_ONCE(!rcu_is_watching, > > > "Livepatch ...")) > > > return; > > > > > > or something to not cause any

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch/rcu: Warn when system consistency is broken in RCU code

Being somewhat late to the party I missed all the fun... On Wed, 10 May 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 06:04:23PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > IMHO, the point is that RCU must be aware when we call > > rcu_read_lock()/unlock(). > > > > My understanding is that

Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch/rcu: Warn when system consistency is broken in RCU code

Being somewhat late to the party I missed all the fun... On Wed, 10 May 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 06:04:23PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > IMHO, the point is that RCU must be aware when we call > > rcu_read_lock()/unlock(). > > > > My understanding is that

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Cancel transition a safe way for immediate patches

ransition even for immediate patches/funcs. But for now, removing the code is the best. Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Jiri, this (obviously) needs to go to 4.12 with the patch set... Miroslav > kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 20 > 1 file cha

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Cancel transition a safe way for immediate patches

for immediate patches/funcs. But for now, removing the code is the best. Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Jiri, this (obviously) needs to go to 4.12 with the patch set... Miroslav > kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 20 > 1 file changed, 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: Reduce the time of finding module symbols

0m1.007s > user 0m0.032s > sys 0m0.924s > > Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengmi...@huawei.com> We are the only user of kallsyms_on_each_symbol() interface right now, so it is not that bad to optimize here. Temporarily :) Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: Reduce the time of finding module symbols

0m1.007s > user 0m0.032s > sys 0m0.924s > > Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming We are the only user of kallsyms_on_each_symbol() interface right now, so it is not that bad to optimize here. Temporarily :) Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v2] module: check if memory leak by module.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 29-03-17 11:32:02, Maninder Singh wrote: > > This patch checks if any module which is going to be unloaded > > is doing vmalloc memory leak or not. > > Hmm, how can you track _all_ vmalloc allocations done on behalf of the > module? It is quite

Re: [PATCH v2] module: check if memory leak by module.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 29-03-17 11:32:02, Maninder Singh wrote: > > This patch checks if any module which is going to be unloaded > > is doing vmalloc memory leak or not. > > Hmm, how can you track _all_ vmalloc allocations done on behalf of the > module? It is quite

Re: [PATCH] reduce the time of finding symbols for module

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote: > On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote: > > > > > It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our > > > out-tree m

Re: [PATCH] reduce the time of finding symbols for module

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote: > On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote: > > > > > It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our > > > out-tree m

Re: [PATCH] reduce the time of finding symbols for module

Hi, On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote: > It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our > out-tree modules is too long. > > ~ time sudo insmod klp.ko > real 0m23.799s > user 0m0.036s > sys 0m21.256s Is this stable through several (>=10) runs? 23 seconds are

Re: [PATCH] reduce the time of finding symbols for module

Hi, On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote: > It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our > out-tree modules is too long. > > ~ time sudo insmod klp.ko > real 0m23.799s > user 0m0.036s > sys 0m21.256s Is this stable through several (>=10) runs? 23 seconds are

Re: [PATCH] audit: log module name on delete_module

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > Record the module name of a delete_module call. > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/37 > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs Could you improve the changelog, please? I don't think that a link to a github

Re: [PATCH] audit: log module name on delete_module

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > Record the module name of a delete_module call. > > See: https://github.com/linux-audit/audit-kernel/issues/37 > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs Could you improve the changelog, please? I don't think that a link to a github issue can and

Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: make klp_mutex proper part of API

; This also silences sparse warning (wrongly) suggesting that klp_mutex > should be defined static. > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkos...@suse.cz> Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: make klp_mutex proper part of API

arse warning (wrongly) suggesting that klp_mutex > should be defined static. > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Miroslav

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: make klp_mutex proper part of API

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:16:00AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > From: Jiri Kosina > > > > klp_mutex is shared between core.c and transition.c, and as such would > > rather be properly located in livepatch.h so that we don't have to

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: make klp_mutex proper part of API

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:16:00AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > From: Jiri Kosina > > > > klp_mutex is shared between core.c and transition.c, and as such would > > rather be properly located in livepatch.h so that we don't have to play > >

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: make klp_mutex proper part of API

_mutex; > - A nit, but could you also include "linux/livepatch.h" in transition.c to make the dependency explicit (and not through patch.h or transition.h)? Anyway, not a big deal and you can add my Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Miroslav

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: make klp_mutex proper part of API

ude "linux/livepatch.h" in transition.c to make the dependency explicit (and not through patch.h or transition.h)? Anyway, not a big deal and you can add my Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v5.1 15/15] livepatch: allow removal of a disabled patch

ay and prevent these > races by design. But it made the patch definition more complicated > and opened another can of worms. See > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1464018848-4303-1-git-send-email-pmla...@suse.com > > [Thanks to Petr Mladek for improving the commit message.] > > Signed-off-by: Mi

Re: [PATCH v5.1 15/15] livepatch: allow removal of a disabled patch

ay and prevent these > races by design. But it made the patch definition more complicated > and opened another can of worms. See > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1464018848-4303-1-git-send-email-pmla...@suse.com > > [Thanks to Petr Mladek for improving the commit message.] > > Signe

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

e /sys/kernel/livepatch//enabled file while > the transition is in progress. Then all the tasks will attempt to > converge back to the original patch state. > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141107140458.ga21...@suse.cz > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> I looked at the patch again and could not see any problem with it. I tested it with a couple of live patches too and it worked as expected. Good job. Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Thanks, Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

the /sys/kernel/livepatch//enabled file while > the transition is in progress. Then all the tasks will attempt to > converge back to the original patch state. > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141107140458.ga21...@suse.cz > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf I looked at the patch again and could not see any problem with it. I tested it with a couple of live patches too and it worked as expected. Good job. Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Thanks, Miroslav

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] livepatch: patch creation tooling proposal

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > TODO: > - support .klp.arch.objname..altinstructions/parainstructions > - split up the patches better > - patch creation documentation > - more tooling support for detecting missing relocations? or > automatically converting them if a sympos isn't

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] livepatch: patch creation tooling proposal

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > TODO: > - support .klp.arch.objname..altinstructions/parainstructions > - split up the patches better > - patch creation documentation > - more tooling support for detecting missing relocations? or > automatically converting them if a sympos isn't

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:51:29AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > What do you think about the following? I tried to put the logic in > > > klp_complete_transition(),

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:51:29AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > What do you think about the following? I tried to put the logic in > > > klp_complete_transition(),

Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] livepatch: hybrid consistency model

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Here's v5 of the consistency model, targeted for 4.12. Only a few minor > changes this time. > > v5: > - return -EINVAL in __save_stack_trace_reliable() > - only call show_stack() once > - add save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() define for

Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] livepatch: hybrid consistency model

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Here's v5 of the consistency model, targeted for 4.12. Only a few minor > changes this time. > > v5: > - return -EINVAL in __save_stack_trace_reliable() > - only call show_stack() once > - add save_stack_trace_tsk_reliable() define for

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > > @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch > > > *patch) > > > > > > pr_not

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > > > @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch > > > *patch) > > > > > > pr_not

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

> @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch) > > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name); > > + klp_init_transition(patch, KLP_PATCHED); > + > + /* > + * Enforce the order of the func->transition writes in > + *

Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

> @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch) > > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name); > > + klp_init_transition(patch, KLP_PATCHED); > + > + /* > + * Enforce the order of the func->transition writes in > + *

Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

tries array > > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done(). > > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can > determine at build time whether the function is implemented. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.c

Re: [PATCH v5 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

tries array > > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done(). > > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can > determine at build time whether the function is implemented. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf I do not se

Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

> > And finally, the section "Limitations" has this text under the first > > bullet: > > > > + The patch must not change the semantic of the patched functions. > > > > The current implementation guarantees only that either the old > > or the new function is called. The functions are

Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

> > And finally, the section "Limitations" has this text under the first > > bullet: > > > > + The patch must not change the semantic of the patched functions. > > > > The current implementation guarantees only that either the old > > or the new function is called. The functions are

Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] livepatch: allow removal of a disabled patch

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > From: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> > > Currently we do not allow patch module to unload since there is no > method to determine if a task is still running in the patched code. > > The consistency model gives us the way bec

Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] livepatch: allow removal of a disabled patch

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > From: Miroslav Benes > > Currently we do not allow patch module to unload since there is no > method to determine if a task is still running in the patched code. > > The consistency model gives us the way because when the unpatc

Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

Petr has already mentioned majority of things I too found out, so only couple of nits... > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch > b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch > index da87f43..24b6570 100644 > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch

Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

Petr has already mentioned majority of things I too found out, so only couple of nits... > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch > b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch > index da87f43..24b6570 100644 > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch

Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Petr Mladek wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > index 7f04e13..fb00d66 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > > + In that case,

Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Petr Mladek wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > index 7f04e13..fb00d66 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt > > > + In that case,

Re: [PATCH] modules: mark __inittest/__exittest as __maybe_unused

t' > [-Wunused-function] > > As these appear in every single module, let's just disable the warnings by > marking the > two functions as __maybe_unused. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> Makes sense. Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Regards, Miroslav

Re: [PATCH] modules: mark __inittest/__exittest as __maybe_unused

t' > [-Wunused-function] > > As these appear in every single module, let's just disable the warnings by > marking the > two functions as __maybe_unused. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Makes sense. Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes Regards, Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v4.1 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

tries array > > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done(). > > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can > determine at build time whether the function is implemented. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v4.1 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

tries array > > Such issues are reported by checking unwind_error() and !unwind_done(). > > Also add CONFIG_HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE so arch-independent code can > determine at build time whether the function is implemented. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] livepatch: hybrid consistency model

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Here's v4, based on linux-next/master. Mostly minor changes this time, > > primarily due to Petr's v3 comments. > > So far, the only review comments have been related to the first

Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] livepatch: hybrid consistency model

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Here's v4, based on linux-next/master. Mostly minor changes this time, > > primarily due to Petr's v3 comments. > > So far, the only review comments have been related to the first

Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] livepatch: add /proc//patch_state

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:31:39PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > Expose the per-task patch state value so users can determine which tasks > > > are holding up c

Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] livepatch: add /proc//patch_state

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:31:39PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > Expose the per-task patch state value so users can determine which tasks > > > are holding up c

Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] livepatch: add /proc//patch_state

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Expose the per-task patch state value so users can determine which tasks > are holding up completion of a patching operation. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com&

Re: [PATCH v4 14/15] livepatch: add /proc//patch_state

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Expose the per-task patch state value so users can determine which tasks > are holding up completion of a patching operation. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek > Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes >

Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] livepatch: create temporary klp_update_patch_state() stub

; > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v4 03/15] livepatch: create temporary klp_update_patch_state() stub

etr Mladek Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Miroslav

Re: [PATCH v4 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

> diff --git a/include/linux/stacktrace.h b/include/linux/stacktrace.h > index 0a34489..8e8b67b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/stacktrace.h > +++ b/include/linux/stacktrace.h > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ extern void save_stack_trace_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, > struct

Re: [PATCH v4 01/15] stacktrace/x86: add function for detecting reliable stack traces

> diff --git a/include/linux/stacktrace.h b/include/linux/stacktrace.h > index 0a34489..8e8b67b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/stacktrace.h > +++ b/include/linux/stacktrace.h > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ extern void save_stack_trace_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, > struct

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: add missing printk newlines

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Add missing newlines to some pr_err() strings. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> Miroslav

Re: [PATCH] livepatch: add missing printk newlines

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Add missing newlines to some pr_err() strings. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf Acked-by: Miroslav Benes Miroslav

Re: [PATCH 7/7] arm: Add livepatch necessary arch selects into Kconfig

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Abel Vesa wrote: > This adds HAVE_LIVEPATCH, MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA and HAVE_LIVEPATCH > to arm Kconfig. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa > --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig

Re: [PATCH 7/7] arm: Add livepatch necessary arch selects into Kconfig

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Abel Vesa wrote: > This adds HAVE_LIVEPATCH, MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA and HAVE_LIVEPATCH > to arm Kconfig. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa > --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > index

Re: [PATCH 6/7] arm: Add livepatch to build if CONFIG_LIVEPATCH

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Abel Vesa wrote: > Necessary livepatch file added to makefile. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa > --- > arch/arm/kernel/Makefile | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile > index

Re: [PATCH 6/7] arm: Add livepatch to build if CONFIG_LIVEPATCH

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Abel Vesa wrote: > Necessary livepatch file added to makefile. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa > --- > arch/arm/kernel/Makefile | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile > index ad325a8..9e70220 100644 > ---

Re: arm: module: Add apply_relocate_add

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Abel Vesa [06/12/16 17:06 +]: > > It was only added to fix compiler error. It is not implemented > > yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa > > --- > > arch/arm/kernel/module.c | 9 + > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

Re: arm: module: Add apply_relocate_add

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Abel Vesa [06/12/16 17:06 +]: > > It was only added to fix compiler error. It is not implemented > > yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa > > --- > > arch/arm/kernel/module.c | 9 + > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git

Re: arm: Add livepatch arch specific code

> > But apply_relocate_add() is not implemented on arm yet. I guess it would > > nice to have it... otherwise we could get to an unpleasant situation. > > Livepatch module can rely on its livepatching relocations (that is, there > > are some). apply_relocate_add() returns 0 on arm, so everything

Re: arm: Add livepatch arch specific code

> > But apply_relocate_add() is not implemented on arm yet. I guess it would > > nice to have it... otherwise we could get to an unpleasant situation. > > Livepatch module can rely on its livepatching relocations (that is, there > > are some). apply_relocate_add() returns 0 on arm, so everything

Re: [PATCH 1/7] arm: Add livepatch arch specific code

bd182a1..d43b790 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -7466,12 +7466,15 @@ M:Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> > M: Jessica Yu <j...@redhat.com> > M: Jiri Kosina <ji...@kernel.org> > M: Miroslav Benes <mbe...@suse.cz> > +

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >