Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753455AbdHROEu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:04:50 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36820 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752954AbdHROEs (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:04:48 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:04:45 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] livepatch: introduce shadow variable API
Message-ID: <20170818140445.GC25223@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <1502740963-31310-1-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <1502740963-31310-2-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
 <87pobtj8hu.fsf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87pobtj8hu.fsf@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1393
Lines: 44

On Fri 2017-08-18 15:44:29, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> <snip>
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * klp_shadow_get() - retrieve a shadow variable data pointer
> > + * @obj:	pointer to parent object
> > + * @id:		data identifier
> > + *
> > + * Return: the shadow variable data element, NULL on failure.
> > + */
> > +void *klp_shadow_get(void *obj, unsigned long id)
> > +{
> > +	struct klp_shadow *shadow;
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +
> > +	hash_for_each_possible_rcu(klp_shadow_hash, shadow, node,
> > +				   (unsigned long)obj) {
> > +
> > +		if (klp_shadow_match(shadow, obj, id)) {
> > +			rcu_read_unlock();
> > +			return shadow->data;
> 
> I had to think a moment about what protects shadow from getting freed by
> a concurrent detach after that rcu_read_unlock(). Then I noticed that if
> obj and the livepatch are alive, then so is shadow, because there
> obviously hasn't been any reason to detach it.
> 
> So maybe it would be nice to have an additional comment at
> klp_shadow_detach() that it's the API user's responsibility not to use a
> shadow instance after detaching it...

Good point. In fact, it might make sense to rename the functions:

     attach -> create
     detach -> destroy

The name detach suggests that the variable is just not connected to
the parent object but that it is still accessible/usable.

Best Regards,
Petr