lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] livepatch: Initialize shadow variables by init function safely
On Wed 2018-03-14 14:44:36, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:27:02PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:54:47PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > The existing API allows to pass a sample data to initialize the shadow
> > > data. It works well when the data are position independent. But it fails
> > > miserably when we need to set a pointer to the shadow structure itself.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, we might need to initialize the pointer surprisingly
> > > often because of struct list_head. It is even worse because the list
> > > might be hidden in other common structures, for example, struct mutex,
> > > struct wait_queue_head.
> > >
> > > This patch makes the API more safe. A custom init function and data
> > > are passed to klp_shadow_*alloc() functions instead of the sample data.
> >
> > Yup, this looks kinda familiar, I remember tinkering with the same idea
> > last year [1] before settling on the simpler API.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/compare/master...joe-lawrence:shadow_variables_v2_c
> >
> > > Note that the init_data are not longer a template for the shadow->data.
> > > It might point to any data that might be necessary when the init
> > > function is called.
> >
> > I'm not opposed to changing the API, but I was wondering if you had
> > thought about expanding it as an alternative?
> >
> > When working on this last summer, I remember holding onto to some less
> > than intuitive naming conventions so that I could support a basic API
> > and an extended API with bells and whistles like this patchset
> > implements. It didn't seem too difficult to layer the basic API ontop
> > of one like this (see [1] for example), so maybe that's an option to
> > keep basic shadow variable usage a little simpler. /two cents
>
> I like Petr's new API. It's not a big deal to just pass a couple of
> NULLs if you don't need the callback.
>
> And I prefer fewer functions anyway -- maybe it's my functionitis
> allergies acting up again.

Yeah, I think that that two APIs might cause confusion. Especially
because *data and *init_data have different meaning. I would prefer
to keep only the first one.


> > Perhaps shadow variables are another candidate for some kind of
> > kselftest?
>
> Indeed!

It would be great.


Best Regards,
Petr

PS: Thanks all for the feedback.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-04 15:09    [W:0.059 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site