2022-03-13 01:49:45

by Guo Ren

Subject: [RFC PATCH] arch: patch_text: Fixup last cpu should be master

From: Guo Ren <[email protected]>

These patch_text implementations are using stop_machine_cpuslocked
infrastructure with atomic cpu_count. The origin idea is that when
the master CPU patch_text, others should wait for it. But current
implementation is using the first CPU as master, which couldn't
guarantee continue CPUs are waiting. This patch changes the last
CPU as the master to solve the potaintial risk.

Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Zankel <[email protected]>
Cc: Max Filippov <[email protected]>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c | 4 ++--
arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 2 +-
arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 2 +-
arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
index 771f543464e0..6cfea9650e65 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
@@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ static int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_cb(void *arg)
int i, ret = 0;
struct aarch64_insn_patch *pp = arg;

- /* The first CPU becomes master */
- if (atomic_inc_return(&pp->cpu_count) == 1) {
+ /* The last CPU becomes master */
+ if (atomic_inc_return(&pp->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
for (i = 0; ret == 0 && i < pp->insn_cnt; i++)
ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(pp->text_addrs[i],
pp->new_insns[i]);
diff --git a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
index 42920f25e73c..19821a06a991 100644
--- a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
+++ b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int __kprobes patch_text_cb(void *priv)
struct csky_insn_patch *param = priv;
unsigned int addr = (unsigned int)param->addr;

- if (atomic_inc_return(&param->cpu_count) == 1) {
+ if (atomic_inc_return(&param->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
*(u16 *) addr = cpu_to_le16(param->opcode);
dcache_wb_range(addr, addr + 2);
atomic_inc(&param->cpu_count);
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
index 0b552873a577..cca72a9388e3 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int patch_text_cb(void *data)
struct patch_insn *patch = data;
int ret = 0;

- if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
+ if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
ret =
patch_text_nosync(patch->addr, &patch->insn,
GET_INSN_LENGTH(patch->insn));
diff --git a/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c b/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
index 61cf6497a646..7e1d3f952eb3 100644
--- a/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int patch_text_stop_machine(void *data)
{
struct patch *patch = data;

- if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
+ if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
local_patch_text(patch->addr, patch->data, patch->sz);
atomic_inc(&patch->cpu_count);
} else {
--
2.25.1

2022-03-13 05:36:36

by Max Filippov

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arch: patch_text: Fixup last cpu should be master

Hi Guo Ren,

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
>
> These patch_text implementations are using stop_machine_cpuslocked
> infrastructure with atomic cpu_count. The origin idea is that when

The original

> the master CPU patch_text, others should wait for it. But current
> implementation is using the first CPU as master, which couldn't
> guarantee continue CPUs are waiting. This patch changes the last

guarantee that remaining CPUs are waiting.

> CPU as the master to solve the potaintial risk.

potential

>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
> Cc: Chris Zankel <[email protected]>
> Cc: Max Filippov <[email protected]>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c | 4 ++--
> arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 2 +-
> arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 2 +-
> arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Max Filippov <[email protected]>

I'm curious, is there a specific issue that prompted this patch?

--
Thanks.
-- Max

2022-03-14 05:59:41

by Guo Ren

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arch: patch_text: Fixup last cpu should be master

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 7:57 AM Max Filippov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> >
> > These patch_text implementations are using stop_machine_cpuslocked
> > infrastructure with atomic cpu_count. The origin idea is that when
> > the master CPU patch_text, others should wait for it. But current
> > implementation is using the first CPU as master, which couldn't
> > guarantee continue CPUs are waiting. This patch changes the last
> > CPU as the master to solve the potaintial risk.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]
> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Chris Zankel <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Max Filippov <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c | 4 ++--
> > arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 2 +-
> > arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 2 +-
> > arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > index 771f543464e0..6cfea9650e65 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> > @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ static int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_cb(void *arg)
> > int i, ret = 0;
> > struct aarch64_insn_patch *pp = arg;
> >
> > - /* The first CPU becomes master */
> > - if (atomic_inc_return(&pp->cpu_count) == 1) {
> > + /* The last CPU becomes master */
> > + if (atomic_inc_return(&pp->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
>
> atomic_inc_return returns the incremented value, so the last CPU gets
> num_online_cpus(), not (num_online_cpus() - 1).
Oops! You are right, thx.

>
> > for (i = 0; ret == 0 && i < pp->insn_cnt; i++)
> > ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(pp->text_addrs[i],
> > pp->new_insns[i]);
> > diff --git a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > index 42920f25e73c..19821a06a991 100644
> > --- a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > +++ b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int __kprobes patch_text_cb(void *priv)
> > struct csky_insn_patch *param = priv;
> > unsigned int addr = (unsigned int)param->addr;
> >
> > - if (atomic_inc_return(&param->cpu_count) == 1) {
> > + if (atomic_inc_return(&param->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
>
> Ditto.
>
> > *(u16 *) addr = cpu_to_le16(param->opcode);
> > dcache_wb_range(addr, addr + 2);
> > atomic_inc(&param->cpu_count);
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> > index 0b552873a577..cca72a9388e3 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int patch_text_cb(void *data)
> > struct patch_insn *patch = data;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
> > + if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
>
> Ditto.
>
> > ret =
> > patch_text_nosync(patch->addr, &patch->insn,
> > GET_INSN_LENGTH(patch->insn));
> > diff --git a/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c b/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
> > index 61cf6497a646..7e1d3f952eb3 100644
> > --- a/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
> > +++ b/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
> > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int patch_text_stop_machine(void *data)
> > {
> > struct patch *patch = data;
> >
> > - if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
> > + if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {
>
> Ditto.
>
> > local_patch_text(patch->addr, patch->data, patch->sz);
> > atomic_inc(&patch->cpu_count);
> > } else {
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks.
> -- Max



--
Best Regards
Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/

2022-03-14 09:28:42

by Max Filippov

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arch: patch_text: Fixup last cpu should be master

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
>
> These patch_text implementations are using stop_machine_cpuslocked
> infrastructure with atomic cpu_count. The origin idea is that when
> the master CPU patch_text, others should wait for it. But current
> implementation is using the first CPU as master, which couldn't
> guarantee continue CPUs are waiting. This patch changes the last
> CPU as the master to solve the potaintial risk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
> Cc: Chris Zankel <[email protected]>
> Cc: Max Filippov <[email protected]>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c | 4 ++--
> arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 2 +-
> arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 2 +-
> arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> index 771f543464e0..6cfea9650e65 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c
> @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ static int __kprobes aarch64_insn_patch_text_cb(void *arg)
> int i, ret = 0;
> struct aarch64_insn_patch *pp = arg;
>
> - /* The first CPU becomes master */
> - if (atomic_inc_return(&pp->cpu_count) == 1) {
> + /* The last CPU becomes master */
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&pp->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {

atomic_inc_return returns the incremented value, so the last CPU gets
num_online_cpus(), not (num_online_cpus() - 1).

> for (i = 0; ret == 0 && i < pp->insn_cnt; i++)
> ret = aarch64_insn_patch_text_nosync(pp->text_addrs[i],
> pp->new_insns[i]);
> diff --git a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> index 42920f25e73c..19821a06a991 100644
> --- a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int __kprobes patch_text_cb(void *priv)
> struct csky_insn_patch *param = priv;
> unsigned int addr = (unsigned int)param->addr;
>
> - if (atomic_inc_return(&param->cpu_count) == 1) {
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&param->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {

Ditto.

> *(u16 *) addr = cpu_to_le16(param->opcode);
> dcache_wb_range(addr, addr + 2);
> atomic_inc(&param->cpu_count);
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> index 0b552873a577..cca72a9388e3 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int patch_text_cb(void *data)
> struct patch_insn *patch = data;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {

Ditto.

> ret =
> patch_text_nosync(patch->addr, &patch->insn,
> GET_INSN_LENGTH(patch->insn));
> diff --git a/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c b/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
> index 61cf6497a646..7e1d3f952eb3 100644
> --- a/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
> +++ b/arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int patch_text_stop_machine(void *data)
> {
> struct patch *patch = data;
>
> - if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == (num_online_cpus() - 1)) {

Ditto.

> local_patch_text(patch->addr, patch->data, patch->sz);
> atomic_inc(&patch->cpu_count);
> } else {
> --
> 2.25.1
>


--
Thanks.
-- Max

2022-03-15 08:45:10

by Guo Ren

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arch: patch_text: Fixup last cpu should be master

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 7:50 AM Max Filippov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Guo Ren,
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> >
> > These patch_text implementations are using stop_machine_cpuslocked
> > infrastructure with atomic cpu_count. The origin idea is that when
>
> The original
>
> > the master CPU patch_text, others should wait for it. But current
> > implementation is using the first CPU as master, which couldn't
> > guarantee continue CPUs are waiting. This patch changes the last
>
> guarantee that remaining CPUs are waiting.
>
> > CPU as the master to solve the potaintial risk.
>
> potential
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]
> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Chris Zankel <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Max Filippov <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/patching.c | 4 ++--
> > arch/csky/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 2 +-
> > arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 2 +-
> > arch/xtensa/kernel/jump_label.c | 2 +-
> > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Reviewed-by: Max Filippov <[email protected]>
>
> I'm curious, is there a specific issue that prompted this patch?
No, theoretical risk.

>
> --
> Thanks.
> -- Max



--
Best Regards
Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/