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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] static_call: Align static_call_is_init() patching
 condition
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        ardb@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sumit.garg@linaro.org,
        oliver.sang@intel.com, jarkko@kernel.org
References: <20210318113156.407406787@infradead.org>
 <20210318113610.636651340@infradead.org>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <f5ce3975-bda6-0e83-3a59-2fac25cc4f08@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:31:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210318113610.636651340@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/03/2021 12.31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The intent is to avoid writing init code after init (because the text
> might have been freed). The code is needlessly different between
> jump_label and static_call and not obviously correct.
> 
> The existing code relies on the fact that the module loader clears the
> init layout, such that within_module_init() always fails, while
> jump_label relies on the module state which is more obvious and
> matches the kernel logic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/static_call.c |   14 ++++----------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/static_call.c
> +++ b/kernel/static_call.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ void __static_call_update(struct static_
>  	};
>  
>  	for (site_mod = &first; site_mod; site_mod = site_mod->next) {
> +		bool init = system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING;

I recently had occasion to look at whether that would be a suitable
condition for knowing whether __init stuff was gone, but concluded that
it's not. Maybe I'm wrong. init/main.c:

        free_initmem();
        mark_readonly();

        /*
         * Kernel mappings are now finalized - update the userspace
page-table
         * to finalize PTI.
         */
        pti_finalize();

        system_state = SYSTEM_RUNNING;

So ISTM there's window where system_state < SYSTEM_RUNNING but accessing
init stuff is a bad idea. If you're PID1 it's all fine, but I suppose
other kernel threads could end up calling static_call_update. And just
moving the system_state setting up before the *free_initmem() calls
doesn't really solve anything because TOCTOU.

Dunno, probably overkill, but perhaps we could have an atomic_t (or
refcount, whatever) init_ref inited to 1, with init_ref_get() doing an
inc_unless_zero, and iff you get a ref, you're free to call (/patch)
__init functions and access __initdata, but must do init_ref_put(), with
PID1 dropping its initial ref and waiting for it to drop to 0 before
doing the *free_initmem() calls.

Rasmus