lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: new text patching for review
    * Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@goop.org) wrote:
    > Andi Kleen wrote:
    > > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> writes:
    > >
    > >> I see that IRQs are disabled in alternative_instructions(), but it does
    > >> not protect against NMIs, which could come at a very inappropriate
    > >> moment. MCE and SMIs would potentially cause the same kind of trouble.
    > >>
    > >> So unless you can guarantee that any code from NMI handler won't call
    > >> basic things such as get_cycles() (nor MCE, nor SMIs), you can't insure
    > >> it won't execute an illegal instruction. Also, the option of temporarily
    > >> disabling the NMI for the duration of the update simply adds unwanted
    > >> latency to the NMI handler which could be unacceptable in some setups.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Ok it's a fair point. But how would you address it ?
    > >
    > > Even if we IPIed the other CPUs NMIs or MCEs could still happen.
    > >
    > > BTW Jeremy, have you ever considered that problem with paravirt ops
    > > patching?
    > >
    >
    > I remember Zach was thinking about it when he was thinking of making vmi
    > a kernel module, but I don't think we discussed it with respect to the
    > current patching mechanism. Though he did discover that at one point
    > alternative_instructions() was being run with interrupts enabled, which
    > caused surprisingly few problems...
    >
    > But, yeah, it seems like it could be a problem.
    >
    > > - smp lock patching only ever changes a single byte (lock prefix) of
    > > a single instruction
    > > - kprobes only ever change a single byte
    > >
    > > For the immediate value patching it also cannot happen because
    > > you'll never modify multiple instructions and all immediate values
    > > can be changed atomically.
    > >
    >
    > Are misaligned/cross-cache-line updates atomic?
    >

    I align the "immediate values" within the mov instructions on multiples
    of the immediate value size so I can update it atomically.

    > J

    --
    Mathieu Desnoyers
    Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
    OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-20 01:55    [W:0.024 / U:61.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site