Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:17:11 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] kprobes: Remove dependency to the module_mutex
Message-ID: <20200724091711.GB517988@gmail.com>
References: <20200724050553.1724168-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20200724050553.1724168-2-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200724050553.1724168-2-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ static void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
>  	cpus_read_lock();
>  	mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
>  	/* Lock modules while optimizing kprobes */
> -	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> +	lock_modules();
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Step 1: Unoptimize kprobes and collect cleaned (unused and disarmed)
> @@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ static void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
>  	/* Step 4: Free cleaned kprobes after quiesence period */
>  	do_free_cleaned_kprobes();
>  
> -	mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> +	unlock_modules();
>  	mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
>  	cpus_read_unlock();

BTW., it would be nice to expand on the comments above - exactly which 
parts of the modules code is being serialized against and why?

We already hold the text_mutex here, which should protect against most 
kprobes related activities interfering - and it's unclear (to me) 
which part of the modules code is being serialized with here, and the 
'lock modules while optimizing kprobes' comments is unhelpful. :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo