[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RISC-V: insn: Use a raw spinlock to protect TEXT_POKE*
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 23:17:13 -0700
Palmer Dabbelt <> wrote:

> From: Palmer Dabbelt <>
> We currently use text_mutex to protect the fixmap sections from
> concurrent callers. This is convienent for kprobes as the generic code
> already holds text_mutex, but ftrace doesn't which triggers a lockdep
> assertion. We could take text_mutex for ftrace, but the jump label
> implementation (which is currently taking text_mutex) isn't explicitly
> listed as being sleepable and it's called from enough places it seems
> safer to just avoid sleeping.
> arm64 and parisc, the other two TEXT_POKE-style patching
> implemnetations, already use raw spinlocks. abffa6f3b157 ("arm64:
> convert patch_lock to raw lock") lays out the case for a raw spinlock as
> opposed to a regular spinlock, and while I don't know of anyone using rt
> on RISC-V I'm sure it'll eventually show up and I don't see any reason
> to wait.

On x86 we use text_mutex for jump label and ftrace. I don't understand the
issue here. The arm64 update was already using spin locks in the
insn_write() function itself. riscv just makes sure that text_mutex is held.

It also looks like ftrace on riscv should also have text_mutex held
whenever it modifies the code. Because I see this in

int ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare(void) __acquires(&text_mutex)
return 0;

int ftrace_arch_code_modify_post_process(void) __releases(&text_mutex)
return 0;

Which should be getting called before and after respectively from when
ftrace does its updates.

Can you show me the back trace of that lockdep splat?

-- Steve

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-29 18:31    [W:0.075 / U:13.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site