Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 23:41:22 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex
 in text_poke*()"
Message-ID: <20180906214122.GG9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180902173224.30606-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <20180902173224.30606-2-namit@vmware.com>
 <20180906194003.GD4816@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <BD1F532F-1006-4CDC-9470-C8A91619E4DE@vmware.com>
 <20180906195351.GB9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <D8CE0D88-9507-421C-9C97-ACAB05388F8D@vmware.com>
 <20180906202547.GC9358@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <E8934715-B8B1-4E37-A37F-18D040885C4F@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <E8934715-B8B1-4E37-A37F-18D040885C4F@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 08:57:38PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:58:40PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> With that CR3 trickery, we can rid ourselves of the text_mutex
> >>> requirement, since concurrent text_poke is 'safe'. That would clean up
> >>> the kgdb code quite a bit.
> >> 
> >> I don’t know. I’m somewhat worried with multiple mechanisms potentially
> >> changing the same code at the same time - and maybe ending up with some
> >> mess.
> > 
> > kgdb only pokes INT3, that should be pretty safe.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand your point. If you want me to get rid of text_mutex
> completely,

No, just the ugly things kgdb does with it.