Re: [PATCH v2] livepatch: old_name.number scheme in livepatch sysfs directory

On 11/04/2015 10:03 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:52:52AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

quoted

quoted

Object entry would be empty for not loaded object. I would not 
dare to propose to remove such object entries. It would make things worse. 

Why would removing an empty object entry make things worse?

I think it all comes down to a question whether the sysfs entries say what 
a patch is capable to patch or what this patch is currently patching in 
the system. I am inclined to the former so the removal would make me 
nervous. But I am not against the second approach. We are still in testing 
mode as far as sysfs is concerned so we can try even harsh changes and see 
how it's gonna go.

I see your point.  This approach only describes what is patched now, but
it doesn't describe what *will* be patched.  Ideally we could find a way
to describe both.

Speaking of harsh changes, here's an idea.

What if we require the patch author to supply the value of 'n' instead
of supplying the symbol address?  We could get rid of 'old_addr' as an
input in klp_func and and replace it with 'old_sympos' which has the
value of 'n'.  Or alternatively we could require old_name to be of the
format "func,n".

I like the idea of old_sympos better than modifying the string.
In addition if no old_sympos is specified then it should default to 0,
since this will probably be the more common case.

That would uniquely identify each patched function, even _before_ the
object is loaded.

It would also fix another big problem we have today, where there's no
way to disambiguate duplicate symbols in modules, for both function
addresses and for relocs.

It would simplify the code in other places as well: no special handling
for kASLR, no need for klp_verify_vmlinux_symbol() vs
klp_find_object_symbol().

A drawback is that it requires the patch author to do a little more due
diligence when filling out klp_func.  But we already require them to be
careful.

Thoughts?

I'll hold off on my v3 for now. Very interesting discussion : ).
--chris