Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:03:02 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1.9 00/14] livepatch: hybrid consistency model
Message-ID: <20160407180302.c5x3sj6b3ditizc4@treble.redhat.com>
References: <cover.1458933243.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20160407121030.GC27670@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20160407150814.tgihh5v6ydhvo7h6@treble.redhat.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1604071745010.27368@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1604071745010.27368@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1709
Lines: 41

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:47:00PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > > > - try ftrace handler switching idea from v1 cover letter
> [ ... ]
> > > We probably should not check the stack in atomic context
> > 
> > Can you elaborate why not?
> 
> I admittedly forgot what the "ftrace handler switching idea" is, and am 
> not sure where exactly to look for it (could you please point it to me so 
> that I can refresh my memory)

Here's where I originally described it [1]:

| 2) As mentioned above, kthreads which are always sleeping on a patched function
|    will never transition to the new universe.  This is really a minor issue
|    (less than 1% of patches).  It's not necessarily something that needs to be
|    resolved with this patch set, but it would be good to have some discussion
|    about it regardless.
|    
|    To overcome this issue, I have 1/2 an idea: we could add some stack checking
|    code to the ftrace handler itself to transition the kthread to the new
|    universe after it re-enters the function it was originally sleeping on, if
|    the stack doesn't already have have any other to-be-patched functions.
|    Combined with the klp_transition_work_fn()'s periodic stack checking of
|    sleeping tasks, that would handle most of the cases (except when trying to
|    patch the high-level thread_fn itself).

> but generally we can't assume that a memory holding stack of a
> sleeping task hasn't been reclaimed and wouldn't need to have been
> paged in again.

Hm, we're talking about kernel stacks, right?  Are they not always
resident in memory?


[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1423499826.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com:

-- 
Josh