Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Nov 2018 01:41:40 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] x86/alternative: use temporary mm for text poking |
| |
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:09:32AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 08:53:07PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * The lock is not really needed, but this allows to avoid open-coding. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + ptep = get_locked_pte(poking_mm, poking_addr, &ptl); > >>>> + > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * If we failed to allocate a PTE, fail. This should *never* happen, > >>>> + * since we preallocate the PTE. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ptep)) > >>>> + goto out; > >>> > >>> Since we hard rely on init getting that right; can't we simply get rid > >>> of this?
> I understand. So the question is - what would you prefer: something like > PARANOID_WARN_ON_ONCE() or should I just remove the assertion?
Something like:
/* * @ptep cannot be NULL per construction in poking_init(). */
And then leave it at that. If it ever comes unstuck we'll get the NULL deref, which is just as good as a BUG_ON().
> >>>> +out: > >>>> + if (memcmp(addr, opcode, len)) > >>>> + r = -EFAULT; > >>> > >>> How could this ever fail? And how can we reliably recover from that? > >> > >> This code has been there before (with slightly uglier code). Before this > >> patch, a BUG_ON() was used here. However, I noticed that kgdb actually > >> checks that text_poke() succeeded after calling it and gracefully fail. > >> However, this was useless, since text_poke() would panic before kgdb gets > >> the chance to do anything (see patch 7). > > > > Yes, I know it was there before, and I did see kgdb do it too. But aside > > from that out-label case, which we also should never hit, how can we > > realistically ever fail that memcmp()? > > > > If we fail here, something is _seriously_ buggered. > > I agree. But as it may be useful at least to warn in such a case, as > debugging of SMC/CMC is hard. For example, if there is some sort of a race > between module (un)loading and static-keys - such a check might be > beneficial to indicate so. Having said that, changing it into VM_BUG_ON() or > something similar may make more sense. > > Personally, I don’t care much - I’m just worried that I made some intrusive > changes *and* you want me to remove the assertion that checks that I didn’t > screw up.
Ah, so I'm perfectly fine with something like:
VM_BUG_ON(memcmp());
I just don't see value in the whole return code here. If this comes unstuck, we're buggered beyond repair.
| |