[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Livepatch vs LTO
On 4/25/19 11:26 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Hi all,
> On IRC, Peter expressed some concern about -flive-patching, specifically
> that the flag isn't compatible with LTO.
> The upstream kernel currently doesn't support LTO, but Android is using
> it with LLVM:
> And there seems to be progress being made in that direction for
> upstream.
> Live patching has at least the following issues with LTO:
> - For source-based patch generation (klp-convert and friends), the GCC
> manual says that -flive-patching is incompatible with LTO. Does
> anybody know if that's a hard incompatibility, or can it be fixed?
> Also, what about the performance implications of this flag with LTO?
> Might they become more pronounced?
> Also I wonder if -fdump-ipa-clones works with LTO?
> I also wonder about the future of source-based patch generation with
> LLVM. Will it also have -flive-patching and -fdump-ipa-clones flags?
> - For binary-based patch generation (kpatch-build), we currently diff
> objects at a per-compilation-unit level. That would have to be
> changed to work on vmlinux.o instead.
> - Objtool would also have to be changed to work on vmlinux.o. It's
> currently not optimized for large files, and the per-.o whitelisting
> would need to be fixed. And there may be other issues lurking.
> Also, thinking about objtool in this context has given me another idea,
> which might allow us to get rid of the use of -flive-patching and
> -fdump-ipa-clones altogether (which are both nasty and way too
> compiler-dependent):

Would objtool work around these issues because it would (pending the
above changes) operate on post-LTO object files?

> Since objtool is already reading every function in the kernel, it could
> create a checksum associated with each function, based on all the
> instructions (both within the function and any alternatives or other
> special sections it relies on). The function checksums could be written
> to a file.
> Then, when a patch file is applied and the kernel rebuilt, the checksum
> files could be compared to determine exactly which functions have
> changed at a binary level.
> Thoughts? Any reasons why that wouldn't work?

This is an interesting option. Keep in mind, like kpatch-build, it
would detect changes as a result of source code line number positioning,
ie WARN_* or might_sleep macros that kpatch-build currently detects and
chooses to ignore. Not a big deal, but warts like this start
introducing more instruction decoding into the process.

Also, I think a klp-convert type script would still be needed to create
livepatch symbols and their corresponding sections and relocations,
right? However, we might not need manual symbol <obj, pos> annotations
to pull this off since presumably the object will have already
built/linked. I think.

I've only just started looking at klp-convert and asm alternatives, but
maybe this would also help determine the alteratives-relocation to
klp_object relationship that we will need if we want klp-convert to
create klp.arch sections.

> And, if we wanted to take the idea even further, objtool could have the
> ability to write the changed functions to a new object file. Voila, we
> now pretty much have kpatch-build :-) (Though whether this is better
> than source-based patch generation is certainly an open question.)

Porting objtool to new arches is probably easier than kpatch-build at least.

-- Joe

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-25 20:23    [W:0.057 / U:5.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site