Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:09:56 +0000 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] arm64: introduce interfaces to hotpatch kernel and module code |
| |
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 04:12:13PM +0000, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 11/06/2013 06:41 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:12:56PM +0000, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: > >> On 3 November 2013 23:55, Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 10/30/2013 08:12 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:19:56PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote: > >>>>> + 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. > >> > >> I had published kprobes patches for ARM64: > >> http://lwn.net/Articles/570648/ and using your patcset (v3) for > >> patching support, it works so far. > >> I CCed you on my RFC but unfortunately to your huawei email not the gmail. > >> > >> I can give a try with kick_all_cpus_sync but wanted to understand this > >> a bit detail on hows different from stop_machine and how this work. > > > > My point was just that for nosync patching, the update to the instruction > > stream is atomic with respect to instruction fetch, so stop_machine seems a > > bit overkill. kick_all_cpus can be used to ensure visibility of the new > > instruction. > > > > Jiang Liu seemed to imply that this isn't suitable for kprobes, but I would > > like to know if/why that is the case. > > > > Will > > > Hi Will and Sandeepa, > Seems some misunderstanding here. We provide three interfaces > here. > 1) aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(), which patches kernel/module text > without explicitly synchronization. It may be used in cases of > 1.a) There's only one CPU running during early boot stage > 1.b) All other CPU has been put into safe state in kgdb. > 1.c) The instructions before and after patching are both hot-patch safe. > > 2) aarch64_insn_patch_text_sync(), which patches kernel/module text > with explicitly synchronization by stop_machine() mechanism. It may > be used to support kprobe because kprobe may patch multiple and/or > non-hotpatch safe instructions at runtime, so we need stop_machine() > for synchronization. > > 3) aarch64_insn_patch_text() intelligently choose > aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync() or aarch64_insn_patch_text_sync(). > > So for kprobe, I think need to use stop_machine() for synchronization.
Yup that sounds right. I think I must've got confused as to what exactly was being patched and the interaction with the mutex; if we're patching live code which isn't hot-patch safe, then stop_machine sounds like the thing to do.
Sorry for the confusion,
Will
| |