lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [POC][RFC][PATCH 1/2] jump_function: Addition of new feature "jump_function"
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 23:55:34 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:44:01 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 21:51:11 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +typedef long dynfunc_t;
> > > +
> > > +struct dynfunc_struct;
> > > +
> > > +#define arch_dynfunc_trampoline(name, def) \
> > > + asm volatile ( \
> > > + ".globl dynfunc_" #name "; \n\t" \
> > > + "dynfunc_" #name ": \n\t" \
> > > + "jmp " #def " \n\t" \
> > > + ".balign 8 \n \t" \
> > > + : : : "memory" )
> > > +
> >
> > I have just a question, what is this different from livepatch? :)
>
> I actually thought about this a bit, but decided against it.
>
> I didn't want to hook another infrastructure into the fentry nop. It's
> already complex enough with kprobes, live patching and ftrace.
>
> The ideal solution is what Peter suggested, and that's to patch the
> call sites, and I think that is attainable with objtool modifications.

OK, the ideal solution sounds good to me.

>
> >
> > I think we can replace the first 5 bytes of the default function
> > to jmp instruction (to alternative function) instead of making
> > this trampoline.
> >
> > IOW, as far as I can see, this is changing
> >
> > ----
> > call %reg (or retpoline_reg)
> > ----
> >
> > to
> >
> > ----
> > call dynfunc_A
> >
> > dynfunc_A:
> > jmp func_A or altered_func_A
> > ----
> >
> > If so, why don't we put the jmp on default func_A directly?
> > ----
> > call func_A
> >
> > func_A:
> > "jmp altered_func" or "original sequence"
> > ----
> > (this is idealy same as jprobes did)
> >
> > Of course we have to arbitrate it with ftrace (fentry) but it may
> > not so hard (simplest way is just adding "notrace" on the default
> > function)
>
> Then we lose the 5 byte nop.

Yeah, but we can remove the trampoline code.

> > BTW, I think "dynamic_function" may not correct name, it may be
> > "alternative_function" or something like that, because this
> > function must be replaced system-wide and this means we can
> > not use this for generic function pointer usage which depends
> > on thread context (like file_operations). But good for something
> > pluggable code (LSM?).
>
> I don't like the name alternative, as that's usually a one shot deal
> (SMP vs UP).
>
> It is dynamic, as it's a function that changes dynamically. Yes its
> global, but that's not mutually exclusive to dynamic.

OK, so we may add a note that this is "global" patching :)

> The use case I want this for is for tracing. But it can be useful for
> KVM and power management governors. Basically anything that has a
> global function pointer (hmm, even the idle call can use this).

Indeed.

Thanks,

>
> -- Steve


--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-09 18:04    [W:0.072 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site