Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1929669c-7674-035b-8cf1-5b5007ecccec@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 18:33:22 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Only block the removal of
 KLP_UNPATCHED forced transition patch
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc:     jpoimboe@redhat.com, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com,
        joe.lawrence@redhat.com, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, songmuchun@bytedance.com,
        qirui.001@bytedance.com
References: <20220301140840.29345-1-zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2203021052470.5895@pobox.suse.cz>
 <fe2b9225-44c3-2041-f8a3-6f17f9d1be40@bytedance.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2203030847430.704@pobox.suse.cz>
From:   Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2203030847430.704@pobox.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/3/3 3:51 下午, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022/3/2 5:55 下午, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>> module_put() is currently never called for a patch with forced flag, to block
>>>> the removal of that patch module that might still be in use after a forced
>>>> transition.
>>>>
>>>> But klp_force_transition() will flag all patches on the list to be forced, since
>>>> commit d67a53720966 ("livepatch: Remove ordering (stacking) of the livepatches")
>>>> has removed stack ordering of the livepatches, it will cause all other patches can't
>>>> be unloaded after disabled even if they have completed the KLP_UNPATCHED transition.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, we don't need to flag a patch to forced if it's a KLP_PATCHED forced
>>>> transition. It can still be unloaded only if it has passed through the consistency
>>>> model in KLP_UNPATCHED transition.
>>>>
>>>> So this patch only set forced flag and block the removal of a KLP_UNPATCHED forced
>>>> transition livepatch.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 4 ++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
>>>> index 5683ac0d2566..8b296ad9e407 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
>>>> @@ -641,6 +641,6 @@ void klp_force_transition(void)
>>>>  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>>>>  		klp_update_patch_state(idle_task(cpu));
>>>>  
>>>> -	klp_for_each_patch(patch)
>>>> -		patch->forced = true;
>>>> +	if (klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED)
>>>> +		klp_transition_patch->forced = true;
>>>
>>> I do not think this would interact nicely with the atomic replace feature. 
>>> If you force the transition of a patch with ->replace set to true, no 
>>> existing patch would get ->forced set with this change, which means all 
>>> patches will be removed at the end of klp_try_complete_transition(). And 
>>> that is something we want to prevent.
>>
>> Good point, I should check if it's an atomic replace livepatch in the else
>> branch, in which case we have to set all existing patches to forced.
> 
> Yes, but that leads to a question if it then brings any value. Forcing a 
> transition should be exceptional. If it is needed, there may be other 
> issues involved which should probably be fixed. Have you come across a 
> practical situation where the patch helped?

Yes, you're right, the correct way is to find and fix the issues that
make us to use this "force" transition interface, until we don't need
to use it.

Apart from this reason, another reason we may use "force" transition
is that we want to speed up the transition process of some patches
when load them, and we can make sure these patches are safe to do so.
(just like a consistency model check disable option when load a patch)

Then I find it confusing and limited that force transition in loading
a patch will make all previous patches can't be unloaded, so can't be
reverted and enabled again (updated or not).

Anyway, I think this patch won't decrease the security performance of
livepatch, but can increase flexibility in some user experience.

Thanks.

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Miroslav