Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 02/12/2015, 04:21 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Ingo, Peter,
> > 
> > Would you have any objections to making task_rq_lock/unlock() non-static
> > (or moving them to kernel/sched/sched.h) so they can be called by the
> > livepatch code?
> > 
> > To provide some background, I'm looking for a way to temporarily prevent
> > a sleeping task from running while its stack is examined, to decide
> > whether it can be safely switched to the new patching "universe".  For
> > more details see klp_transition_task() in the patch below.
> > 
> > Using task_rq_lock() is the most straightforward way I could find to
> > achieve that.
> 
> Hi, I cannot speak whether it is the proper way or not.
> 
> But if so, would it make sense to do the opposite: expose an API to walk
> through the processes' stack and make the decision? Concretely, move
> parts of klp_stacktrace_address_verify_func to sched.c or somewhere in
> kernel/sched/ and leave task_rq_lock untouched.

Yeah, it makes sense in theory.  But I'm not sure how to do that in a
way that prevents races when switching the task's universe.  I think we
need the rq locked for both the stack walk and the universe switch.

In general, I agree it would be good to find a way to keep the rq
locking functions in sched.c.

-- 
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/