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;
From:   Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Subject: [PATCH V2] livepatch: fix non-static warnings
Date:   Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:07:37 +0100
Message-Id: <1544965657-26804-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Sparse reported warnings about non-static symbols. For the variables
a simple static attribute is fine - for those symbols referenced by
livepatch via klp_func the symbol-names must be unmodified in the
symbol table - to resolve this the __noclone attribute is used
for the shared statically declared functions.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Suggested-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/13/827
---

V2: not all static functions shared need to carry the __noclone
    attribute only those that need to be resolved at runtime by
    livepatch - so drop the unnecessary __noclone attributes as
    well as the Note on __noclone as suggested by Joe Lawrence
    <joe.lawrence@redhat.com> - thanks !

Sparse reported the following findings:

CHECK   samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:99:1: warning: symbol
 'dummy_list' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:100:1: warning: symbol
 'dummy_list_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:107:23: warning: symbol
 'dummy_alloc' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:128:15: warning: symbol
 'dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:136:15: warning: symbol
 'dummy_check' was not declared. Should it be static?

CHECK   samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c:74:14: warning: symbol
 'livepatch_fix1_dummy_alloc' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c:111:6: warning: symbol
 'livepatch_fix1_dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?

CHECK   samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c:53:6: warning: symbol
 'livepatch_fix2_dummy_check' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c:81:6: warning: symbol
 'livepatch_fix2_dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?

Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig + FTRACE=y
FUNCTION_TRACER=y, EXPERT=y, LATENCYTOP=y, SAMPLES=y,
SAMPLE_LIVEPATCH=y

Patch was runtested with:
   insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.ko
   insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.ko
   insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.ko
   echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/livepatch_shadow_fix2/enabled
   echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/livepatch_shadow_fix1/enabled
   rmmod livepatch-shadow-fix2
   rmmod livepatch-shadow-fix1
   rmmod livepatch-shadow-mod
and dmesg output compared with the run before the patch was
applied.

Patch is against 4.20-rc6 (localversion-next is next-20181214)

 samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c |  4 ++--
 samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c |  4 ++--
 samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c  | 11 ++++++-----
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
index 49b1355..ebe78e2 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static int shadow_leak_ctor(void *obj, void *shadow_data, void *ctor_data)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-struct dummy *livepatch_fix1_dummy_alloc(void)
+static struct dummy *livepatch_fix1_dummy_alloc(void)
 {
 	struct dummy *d;
 	void *leak;
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void livepatch_fix1_dummy_leak_dtor(void *obj, void *shadow_data)
 			 __func__, d, *shadow_leak);
 }
 
-void livepatch_fix1_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
+static void livepatch_fix1_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
 {
 	void **shadow_leak;
 
diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
index b34c7bf..b6dac2b 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct dummy {
 	unsigned long jiffies_expire;
 };
 
-bool livepatch_fix2_dummy_check(struct dummy *d, unsigned long jiffies)
+static bool livepatch_fix2_dummy_check(struct dummy *d, unsigned long jiffies)
 {
 	int *shadow_count;
 
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static void livepatch_fix2_dummy_leak_dtor(void *obj, void *shadow_data)
 			 __func__, d, *shadow_leak);
 }
 
-void livepatch_fix2_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
+static void livepatch_fix2_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
 {
 	void **shadow_leak;
 	int *shadow_count;
diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
index 4c54b25..2168d57 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
@@ -96,15 +96,15 @@ MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Buggy module for shadow variable demo");
  * Keep a list of all the dummies so we can clean up any residual ones
  * on module exit
  */
-LIST_HEAD(dummy_list);
-DEFINE_MUTEX(dummy_list_mutex);
+static LIST_HEAD(dummy_list);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(dummy_list_mutex);
 
 struct dummy {
 	struct list_head list;
 	unsigned long jiffies_expire;
 };
 
-noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void)
+static __noclone noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void)
 {
 	struct dummy *d;
 	void *leak;
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void)
 	return d;
 }
 
-noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
+static __noclone noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
 {
 	pr_info("%s: dummy @ %p, expired = %lx\n",
 		__func__, d, d->jiffies_expire);
@@ -133,7 +133,8 @@ noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
 	kfree(d);
 }
 
-noinline bool dummy_check(struct dummy *d, unsigned long jiffies)
+static __noclone noinline bool dummy_check(struct dummy *d,
+					   unsigned long jiffies)
 {
 	return time_after(jiffies, d->jiffies_expire);
 }
-- 
2.1.4