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, 2 Apr 2020 10:17:33 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To:     Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] riscv: introduce interfaces to patch kernel code
Message-Id: <20200402101733.1ef240faeaeada6e4d38ae80@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANXhq0ra3o+mgenbYLq_q0eZY2KiXNpWmo2V0amD0cFDqCQkXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1583772574.git.zong.li@sifive.com>
        <d27d9e68491e1df67dbee6c22df6a72ff95bab18.1583772574.git.zong.li@sifive.com>
        <20200401003233.17fe4b6f7075e5b8f0ed5114@kernel.org>
        <CANXhq0ra3o+mgenbYLq_q0eZY2KiXNpWmo2V0amD0cFDqCQkXw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:42:30 +0800
Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com> wrote:

> > > +
> > > +static int __kprobes riscv_insn_write(void *addr, const void *insn, size_t len)
> >
> > Why would you add "riscv_" prefix for those functions? It seems a bit odd.
> 
> There is no particular reason, I just was used to adding a prefix for
> arch-related stuff. I have no preference here, it's OK to me to remove
> the prefix of these functions, do you think we need to remove them?

Yeah, it will be better, unless it can mixed up with arch-independent
functions.

> > > +{
> > > +     void *waddr = addr;
> > > +     bool across_pages = (((uintptr_t) addr & ~PAGE_MASK) + len) > PAGE_SIZE;
> > > +     unsigned long flags = 0;
> > > +     int ret;
> > > +
> > > +     raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&patch_lock, flags);
> >
> > This looks a bit odd since stop_machine() is protected by its own mutex,
> > and also the irq is already disabled here.
> 
> We need it because we don't always enter the riscv_patch_text_nosync()
> through stop_machine mechanism. If we call the
> riscv_patch_text_nosync() directly, we need a lock to protect the
> page.

Oh, OK, but it leads another question. Is that safe to patch the
text without sync? Would you use it for UP system?
I think it is better to clarify "in what case user can call _nosync()"
and add a comment on it.

Thank you,

> 
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > > +
> > > +     if (across_pages)
> > > +             patch_map(addr + len, FIX_TEXT_POKE1);
> > > +
> > > +     waddr = patch_map(addr, FIX_TEXT_POKE0);
> > > +
> > > +     ret = probe_kernel_write(waddr, insn, len);
> > > +
> > > +     patch_unmap(FIX_TEXT_POKE0);
> > > +
> > > +     if (across_pages)
> > > +             patch_unmap(FIX_TEXT_POKE1);
> > > +
> > > +     raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&patch_lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > +     return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > > +static int __kprobes riscv_insn_write(void *addr, const void *insn, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > +     return probe_kernel_write(addr, insn, len);
> > > +}
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_MMU */
> > > +
> > > +int __kprobes riscv_patch_text_nosync(void *addr, const void *insns, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > +     u32 *tp = addr;
> > > +     int ret;
> > > +
> > > +     ret = riscv_insn_write(tp, insns, len);
> > > +
> > > +     if (!ret)
> > > +             flush_icache_range((uintptr_t) tp, (uintptr_t) tp + len);
> > > +
> > > +     return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int __kprobes riscv_patch_text_cb(void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct riscv_insn_patch *patch = data;
> > > +     int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > +     if (atomic_inc_return(&patch->cpu_count) == 1) {
> > > +             ret =
> > > +                 riscv_patch_text_nosync(patch->addr, &patch->insn,
> > > +                                         GET_INSN_LENGTH(patch->insn));
> > > +             atomic_inc(&patch->cpu_count);
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             while (atomic_read(&patch->cpu_count) <= num_online_cpus())
> > > +                     cpu_relax();
> > > +             smp_mb();
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int __kprobes riscv_patch_text(void *addr, u32 insn)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct riscv_insn_patch patch = {
> > > +             .addr = addr,
> > > +             .insn = insn,
> > > +             .cpu_count = ATOMIC_INIT(0),
> > > +     };
> > > +
> > > +     return stop_machine_cpuslocked(riscv_patch_text_cb,
> > > +                                    &patch, cpu_online_mask);
> > > +}
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>