lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/6] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()"
Date
at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:58:40PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> With that CR3 trickery, we can rid ourselves of the text_mutex
>>> requirement, since concurrent text_poke is 'safe'. That would clean up
>>> the kgdb code quite a bit.
>>
>> I don’t know. I’m somewhat worried with multiple mechanisms potentially
>> changing the same code at the same time - and maybe ending up with some
>> mess.
>
> kgdb only pokes INT3, that should be pretty safe.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. If you want me to get rid of text_mutex
completely, I am afraid it will be able to cause mess by changing the same
piece of code through kprobes and the static-keys mechanism.

I doubt it would work today without failing, but getting rid of text_mutex
is likely to make it even worse.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-06 22:58    [W:0.111 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site