lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] ftrace: disable preemption on the testing of recursion
> diff --git a/include/linux/trace_recursion.h b/include/linux/trace_recursion.h
> index a9f9c57..805f9c4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/trace_recursion.h
> +++ b/include/linux/trace_recursion.h
> @@ -214,7 +214,14 @@ static __always_inline void trace_clear_recursion(int bit)
> static __always_inline int ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(unsigned long ip,
> unsigned long parent_ip)
> {
> - return trace_test_and_set_recursion(ip, parent_ip, TRACE_FTRACE_START, TRACE_FTRACE_MAX);
> + int bit;
> +
> + preempt_disable_notrace();
> + bit = trace_test_and_set_recursion(ip, parent_ip, TRACE_FTRACE_START, TRACE_FTRACE_MAX);
> + if (bit < 0)
> + preempt_enable_notrace();
> +
> + return bit;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -226,6 +233,7 @@ static __always_inline int ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(unsigned long ip,
> static __always_inline void ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(int bit)
> {
> trace_clear_recursion(bit);
> + preempt_enable_notrace();
> }
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_TRACING */
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> index e8029ae..6e66ccd 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> @@ -52,11 +52,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
> bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bit < 0))
> return;
> - /*
> - * A variant of synchronize_rcu() is used to allow patching functions
> - * where RCU is not watching, see klp_synchronize_transition().
> - */
> - preempt_disable_notrace();
>
> func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
> stack_node);
> @@ -120,7 +115,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
> klp_arch_set_pc(fregs, (unsigned long)func->new_func);
>
> unlock:
> - preempt_enable_notrace();
> ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
> }

I don't like this change much. We have preempt_disable there not because
of ftrace_test_recursion, but because of RCU. ftrace_test_recursion was
added later. Yes, it would work with the change, but it would also hide
things which should not be hidden in my opinion.

Miroslav

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-12 14:25    [W:0.116 / U:1.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site