lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH V2] livepatch: fix non-static warnings
Date
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
symbol table - to resolve this the __noclone attribute is used
for the shared statically declared functions.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Suggested-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/13/827
---

V2: not all static functions shared need to carry the __noclone
attribute only those that need to be resolved at runtime by
livepatch - so drop the unnecessary __noclone attributes as
well as the Note on __noclone as suggested by Joe Lawrence
<joe.lawrence@redhat.com> - thanks !

Sparse reported the following findings:

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:128:15: warning: symbol
'dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c:136:15: warning: symbol
'dummy_check' was not declared. Should it be static?

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:111:6: warning: symbol
'livepatch_fix1_dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?

CHECK samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c:53:6: warning: symbol
'livepatch_fix2_dummy_check' was not declared. Should it be static?
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c:81:6: warning: symbol
'livepatch_fix2_dummy_free' was not declared. Should it be static?

Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig + FTRACE=y
FUNCTION_TRACER=y, EXPERT=y, LATENCYTOP=y, SAMPLES=y,
SAMPLE_LIVEPATCH=y

Patch was runtested 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 compared with the run before the patch was
applied.

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

samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c | 4 ++--
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c | 4 ++--
samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c | 11 ++++++-----
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c
index 49b1355..ebe78e2 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 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 void livepatch_fix1_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
{
void **shadow_leak;

diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
index b34c7bf..b6dac2b 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix2.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct dummy {
unsigned long jiffies_expire;
};

-bool livepatch_fix2_dummy_check(struct dummy *d, unsigned long jiffies)
+static bool livepatch_fix2_dummy_check(struct dummy *d, unsigned long jiffies)
{
int *shadow_count;

@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static void livepatch_fix2_dummy_leak_dtor(void *obj, void *shadow_data)
__func__, d, *shadow_leak);
}

-void livepatch_fix2_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
+static void livepatch_fix2_dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
{
void **shadow_leak;
int *shadow_count;
diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
index 4c54b25..2168d57 100644
--- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
+++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c
@@ -96,15 +96,15 @@ 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
*/
-LIST_HEAD(dummy_list);
-DEFINE_MUTEX(dummy_list_mutex);
+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 +125,7 @@ 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 +133,8 @@ noinline void dummy_free(struct dummy *d)
kfree(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);
}
--
2.1.4
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-16 14:12    [W:0.182 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site