Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751545AbdILWFt (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:05:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46244 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbdILWFq (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:05:46 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5A5E78553C Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=joe.lawrence@redhat.com Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:05:44 -0400 From: Joe Lawrence To: Miroslav Benes Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf , Jessica Yu , Jiri Kosina , Petr Mladek , Chris J Arges Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] livepatch: add (un)patch callbacks Message-ID: <20170912220544.zdgh65o4aqmd5ni4@redhat.com> References: <1504191233-2642-1-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> <1504191233-2642-2-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-08) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:05:46 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2731 Lines: 78 On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:48:48AM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote: > On 09/12/2017 04:53 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote: > >> @@ -871,13 +882,27 @@ int klp_module_coming(struct module *mod) > >> pr_notice("applying patch '%s' to loading module '%s'\n", > >> patch->mod->name, obj->mod->name); > >> > >> + ret = klp_pre_patch_callback(obj); > >> + if (ret) { > >> + pr_warn("pre-patch callback failed for object '%s'\n", > >> + obj->name); > >> + goto err; > >> + } > > > > There is a problem here. We cycle through all enabled patches (or > > klp_transition_patch) and call klp_pre_patch_callback() everytime an > > enabled patch contains a patch for a coming module. Now, it can easily > > happen that klp_pre_patch_callback() fails. And not the first one from the > > first relevant patch, but the next one. In that case we need to call > > klp_post_unpatch_callback() for all already processed relevant patches in > > the error path. > > Good test case, if I understand you correctly: > > - Load target modules mod1 and mod2 > - Load a livepatch that targets mod1 and mod2 > - pre-patch succeeds for mod1 > - pre-patch fails for mod2 > > and then we should: > > - NOT run post-patch or pre/post-unpatch handlers for mod2 > - NOT run post-patch or pre-unpatch handlers for mod1 > - do run post-unpatch handler for mod1 > - Refuse to load the livepatch > > Does that sound right? Erm, probably not... > > Unfortunately, we need to do the same for klp_patch_object() below, > > because there is the same problem and we missed it. > > > >> + > >> ret = klp_patch_object(obj); > >> if (ret) { > >> pr_warn("failed to apply patch '%s' to module '%s' (%d)\n", > >> patch->mod->name, obj->mod->name, ret); > >> + > >> + if (patch != klp_transition_patch) > >> + klp_post_unpatch_callback(obj); > >> + > >> goto err; > > > > Here. > > > > Could you do it as a part of the patch set (or send it separately), > > please? I've re-read this a few times, and I think I might have been originally off-base with what I thought you were concerned about. But I think I grok it now: the problem you pointed out arises because klp_module_coming() iterates like so: for each klp_patch for each kobj in klp_patch which means that we may have made pre-patch callbacks and patched a given kobj for an earlier klp_patch that now fails for a later klp_patch. What should be the defined behavior in this case? I would expect that we need to unpatch all similar kobjs across klp_patches which have already been successfully patched. In turn, their post-unpatch callbacks should be invoked. If that's true, maybe this would make a better follow-on patch. -- Joe