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:   Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:14:28 +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: <20200404121428.596911ba5653f8b18a80eab2@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANXhq0rMbkNxQ3_qqYEKe8DSbL-vfQku6V9a81Hy9cxW4LaW9g@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>
        <20200402101733.1ef240faeaeada6e4d38ae80@kernel.org>
        <CANXhq0rMbkNxQ3_qqYEKe8DSbL-vfQku6V9a81Hy9cxW4LaW9g@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 Zong,

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 17:04:51 +0800
Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com> wrote:

> > > > > +{
> > > > > +     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.
> 
> The ftrace is one of the cases, as documentation of ftrace said, when
> dynamic ftrace is initialized, it calls kstop_machine to make the
> machine act like a uniprocessor so that it can freely modify code
> without worrying about other processors executing that same code. So
> the ftrace called the _nosync interface here directly.

Hmm, even though, since it already running under kstop_machine(), no
other thread will run. 
Could you consider to use text_mutex instead of that? The text_mutex
is already widely used in x86 and kernel/kprobes.c etc.

(Hmm, it seems except for x86, alternative code don't care about
 racing...)

Thank you,
-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>