On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 14:24:43 +0200 (CEST)
Miroslav Benes [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
+++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
@@ -52,11 +52,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bit < 0))
return;
- /*
- * A variant of synchronize_rcu() is used to allow patching functions
- * where RCU is not watching, see klp_synchronize_transition().
- */
- preempt_disable_notrace();
func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
stack_node);
@@ -120,7 +115,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
klp_arch_set_pc(fregs, (unsigned long)func->new_func);
unlock:
- preempt_enable_notrace();
ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
}
I don't like this change much. We have preempt_disable there not because
of ftrace_test_recursion, but because of RCU. ftrace_test_recursion was
added later. Yes, it would work with the change, but it would also hide
things which should not be hidden in my opinion.
Agreed, but I believe the change is fine, but requires a nice comment to
explain what you said above.
Thus, before the "ftrace_test_recursion_trylock()" we need:
/*
* The ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() will disable preemption,
* which is required for the variant of synchronize_rcu() that is
* used to allow patching functions where RCU is not watching.
* See klp_synchronize_transition() for more details.
*/
-- Steve