[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
Subject[PATCH 1/2] livepatch: fix non-static warnings
Sparse reported warnings about non-static symbols. For the variables a
simple static attribute is fine - for those symbols referenced by
livepatch via klp_func the symbol-names must be unmodified in the
relocation table - to resolve this the __noclone attribute (as
suggested by Joe Lawrence <>) is used
for the statically declared functions.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <>

sparse reported the following warnings:

CHECK samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c:74:14: warning: symbol
'livepatch_fix1_dummy alloc' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c:116:6: warning: symbol
'livepatch_fix1_dummy free' was not declared. Should it be static?

CHECK samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:99:1: warning: symbol
'dummy_list' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:100:1: warning: symbol
'dummy_list_mutex' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:107:23: warning: symbol
'dummy_alloc' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:132:15: warning: symbol
'dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:140:15: warning: symbol
'dummy_check' was not declared. Should it be static?

Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig + FTRACE=y

Patch was runtested on an Intel i3 with:
insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.ko
insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.ko
insmod samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.ko
echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/livepatch_shadow_fix2/enabled
echo 0 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/livepatch_shadow_fix1/enabled
rmmod livepatch-shadow-fix2
rmmod livepatch-shadow-fix1
rmmod livepatch-shadow-mod
and dmesg output checked.

Patch is against 4.20-rc6 (localversion-next is next-20181214)

samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c | 4 ++--
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
index 49b1355..eaab10f 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static int shadow_leak_ctor(void *obj, void *shadow_data, void *ctor_data)
return 0;

-struct dummy *livepatch_fix1_dummy_alloc(void)
+static __noclone struct dummy *livepatch_fix1_dummy_alloc(void)
struct dummy *d;
void *leak;
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void livepatch_fix1_dummy_leak_dtor(void *obj, void *shadow_data)
__func__, d, *shadow_leak);

-void livepatch_fix1_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
+static __noclone void livepatch_fix1_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
void **shadow_leak;

diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
index 4c54b25..0a72bc2 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
@@ -30,6 +30,11 @@
* memory leak, please load these modules at your own risk -- some
* amount of memory may leaked before the bug is patched.
+ * NOTE - the __noclone attribute to those functions that are to be
+ * shared with other modules while being declared static. As livepatch
+ * needs the unmodified symbol names and the usual "static" would
+ * invoke gccs cloning mechanism that renames the functions this
+ * needs to be suppressed with the additional __noclone attribute.
* Usage
* -----
@@ -96,15 +101,15 @@ MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Buggy module for shadow variable demo");
* Keep a list of all the dummies so we can clean up any residual ones
* on module exit
+static LIST_HEAD(dummy_list);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(dummy_list_mutex);

struct dummy {
struct list_head list;
unsigned long jiffies_expire;

-noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void)
+static __noclone noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void)
struct dummy *d;
void *leak;
@@ -125,7 +130,7 @@ noinline struct dummy *dummy_alloc(void)
return d;

-noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
+static __noclone noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
pr_info("%s: dummy @ %p, expired = %lx\n",
__func__, d, d->jiffies_expire);
@@ -133,7 +138,8 @@ noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)

-noinline bool dummy_check(struct dummy *d, unsigned long jiffies)
+static __noclone noinline bool dummy_check(struct dummy *d,
+ unsigned long jiffies)
return time_after(jiffies, d->jiffies_expire);
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-14 18:01    [W:0.126 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site