Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-150703-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:44:31 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] module: [
Message-ID: <ZiF4H5_tGx7woaXH@kernel.org>
References: <20240411160526.2093408-1-rppt@kernel.org>
 <20240411160526.2093408-4-rppt@kernel.org>
 <0C4B9C1A-97DE-4798-8256-158369AF42A4@gmail.com>
 <ZiDz4YbIHEOAnpwF@kernel.org>
 <A714B340-9EFB-4F27-9CD6-CFBC1BC9139F@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <A714B340-9EFB-4F27-9CD6-CFBC1BC9139F@gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:31:16PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> 
> > On 18 Apr 2024, at 13:20, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 12:36:08PM +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I might be missing something, but it seems a bit racy.
> >> 
> >> IIUC, module_finalize() calls alternatives_smp_module_add(). At this
> >> point, since you don’t hold the text_mutex, some might do text_poke(),
> >> e.g., by enabling/disabling static-key, and the update would be
> >> overwritten. No?
> > 
> > Right :(
> > Even worse, for UP case alternatives_smp_unlock() will "patch" still empty
> > area.
> > 
> > So I'm thinking about calling alternatives_smp_module_add() from an
> > additional callback after the execmem_update_copy().
> > 
> > Does it make sense to you?
> 
> Going over the code again - I might have just been wrong: I confused the
> alternatives and the jump-label mechanisms (as they do share a lot of
> code and characteristics).
> 
> The jump-labels are updated when prepare_coming_module() is called, which
> happens after post_relocation() [which means they would be updated using
> text_poke() “inefficiently” but should be safe].
> 
> The “alternatives” appear only to use text_poke() (in contrast for
> text_poke_early()) from very specific few flows, e.g., 
> common_cpu_up() -> alternatives_enable_smp().
> 
> Are those flows pose a problem after boot?

Yes, common_cpu_up is called  on CPU hotplug, so it's possible to have a
race between alternatives_smp_module_add() and common_cpu_up() ->
alternatives_enable_smp().

And in UP case alternatives_smp_module_add() will call
alternatives_smp_unlock() that will patch module text before it is updated.

> Anyhow, sorry for the noise.

On the contrary, I would have missed it.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.