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:   Fri, 31 May 2019 15:19:06 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Remove duplicate warning about missing
 reliable stacktrace support
Message-ID: <20190531131906.lkhrfgpze57pqrcg@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20190531074147.27616-1-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20190531074147.27616-3-pmladek@suse.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.1905311425450.742@pobox.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1905311425450.742@pobox.suse.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 2019-05-31 14:32:34, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 
> > WARN_ON_ONCE() could not be called safely under rq lock because
> > of console deadlock issues.
> > 
> > It can be simply removed. A better descriptive message is written
> > in klp_enable_patch() when klp_have_reliable_stack() fails.
> > The remaining debug message is good enough.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > index abb2a4a2cbb2..1bf362df76e1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > @@ -247,7 +247,6 @@ static int klp_check_stack(struct task_struct *task, char *err_buf)
> >  	int ret, nr_entries;
> >  
> >  	ret = stack_trace_save_tsk_reliable(task, entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries));
> > -	WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == -ENOSYS);
> >  	if (ret < 0) {
> >  		snprintf(err_buf, STACK_ERR_BUF_SIZE,
> >  			 "%s: %s:%d has an unreliable stack\n",
> 
> The current situation is not the best, but I think the patch improves it 
> only slightly. I see two possible solutions.
> 
> 1. we either revert commit 1d98a69e5cef ("livepatch: Remove reliable 
> stacktrace check in klp_try_switch_task()"), so that klp_check_stack() 
> returns right away.
> 
> 2. or we test ret from stack_trace_save_tsk_reliable() for ENOSYS and 
> return.
> 
> In my opinion either of them is better than what we have now (and what we 
> would have with the patch), because klp_check_stack() returns, but it 
> prints out that a task has an unreliable stack. Yes, it is pr_debug() only 
> in the end, but still.

IMHO, any extra check will not improve the situation much. Quiet
return is as useless as the misleading pr_debug() that will
not normally get printed anyway.

Adding a warning is complicated because we would need to pass it via
the temporary buffer. It is not worth the complexity.

IMHO, it does not make sense to complicate the code because of
a corner case situation that would hit only people adding
livepatch support for new architecture.


> I don't have a preference and my understanding is that Petr does not want 
> to do v4. I can prepare a patch, but it would be nice to choose now. Josh? 
> Anyone else?

Exactly. Fell free to take over the patches.

I do not want to spend more time on endless discussions about this
corner case.

I made the 1st and 2nd patch only because of ideas mentioned when switching
klp_have_reliable_stack() from error to warning, namely:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190418135858.n3lzq2oxkj52m6bi@treble
  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LSU.2.21.1904231041500.19172@pobox.suse.cz

I have never expected that it would need several more respins.

Note that there is no good solution. We would need to choose between
a complicated code or an imperfect error handling. Anything in between
is just a compromise. Choosing between all the variants looks like
a bikeshedding to me.

I sent what I preferred and what looked acceptable. I am not going
to block other approaches unless they make the code too complicated.

Best Regards,
Petr