[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/7] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()"
From: Thomas Gleixner
Sent: November 4, 2018 at 8:58:20 PM GMT
> To: Nadav Amit <>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <>,>,>, H. Peter Anvin <>, Borislav Petkov <>, Dave Hansen <>, Jiri Kosina <>, Andy Lutomirski <>, Kees Cook <>, Dave Hansen <>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()"
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> text_mutex is expected to be held before text_poke() is called, but we
>> cannot add a lockdep assertion since kgdb does not take it, and instead
>> *supposedly* ensures the lock is not taken and will not be acquired by
>> any other core while text_poke() is running.
>> The reason for the "supposedly" comment is that it is not entirely clear
>> that this would be the case if gdb_do_roundup is zero.
>> Add a comment to clarify this behavior, and restore the assertions as
>> they were before the recent commit.
> It restores nothing. It just removes the assertion.

Sorry - wrong commit log. There were no other assertions before.

>> This partially reverts commit 9222f606506c ("x86/alternatives:
>> Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()")
> That opens up the same can of worms again, which took us a while to close.

I’m surprised. This patch only removes one assertion that was added two
months ago.

> Can we please instead split out the text_poke() code into a helper function
> and have two callers:
> text_poke() which contains the assert
> text_poke_kgdb() which does not

Sure. I will send another version once I realize how to deal with the other
concerns that Peter and Andy raised.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-05 19:15    [W:0.097 / U:7.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site