lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFA][PATCH 2/5] ftrace/x86: One more missing sync after fixup of function modification failure
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:19:37 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:00:14PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:37:32 +0100
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:46:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > [Request for Ack]
> > > >
> > > > From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>
> > > >
> > > > If a failure occurs while modifying ftrace function, it bails out and will
> > > > remove the tracepoints to be back to what the code originally was.
> > > >
> > > > There is missing the final sync run across the CPUs after the fix up is done
> > > > and before the ftrace int3 handler flag is reset.
> > >
> > > So IIUC the risk is that other CPUs may spuriously ignore non-ftrace traps if we don't sync the
> > > other cores after reverting the int3 before decrementing the modifying_ftrace_code counter?
> >
> > Actually, the bug is that they will not ignore the ftrace traps after
> > we decrement modifying_ftrace_code counter. Here's the race:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > ---- ----
> > remove_breakpoint();
> > modifying_ftrace_code = 0;
> >
> > [still sees breakpoint]
> > <takes trap>
> > [sees modifying_ftrace_code as zero]
> > [no breakpoint handler]
> > [goto failed case]
> > [trap exception - kernel breakpoint, no
> > handler]
> > BUG()
> >
> >
> > Even if we had a smp_wmb() after removing the breakpoint and clearing
> > the modifying_ftrace_code, we still need the smp_rmb() on the other
> > CPUS. The run_sync() does a IPI on all CPUs doing the smp_rmb().
>
> Ah ok. My understanding was indeed that it doesn't ignore the ftrace trap,
> but I thought the consequence was that we return immediately from the trap
> handler.

I'll add my above cpu race diagram (is that what we call it?). That
should make this change more understandable.


> Ok but what I meant is to do this instead:
>
> fail_update:
> probe_kernel_write((void *)ip, &old_code[0], 1);
> + run_sync()
> goto out;
>
> Because with the current patch we also call run_sync() on add_break() failure.

Ah ok (my turn to understand). Yeah, if the add_break() fails, then we
don't need to do the run_sync().

But this is just for now, to prevent the add_update_code() error from
crashing. I have more patches that clean this up further. But they are
for 3.15.

-- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-27 19:21    [W:0.165 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site