Re: [v5][PATCH] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc
From: Balbir Singh
Date: Tue Mar 08 2016 - 08:52:38 EST
On 08/03/16 21:45, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:33:57PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Changelog v5:
>> 1. Removed the mini-stack frame created for klp_return_helper.
>> As a result of the mini-stack frame, function with > 8
>> arguments could not be patched
> Did you get my previous mails? Those functions only require special
> care, the _can_ be patched. In general, writing replacement functions
> always requires attention!
Yes, I did. We did think about documenting that limitation, but the big concern
was that the system can be panic'd with a simple test case. We expect live patches
to be tested and signed so we should be OK, but there still is a window
> Have you *tested* this patch? Replacing a function in the kernel?
> Replacing a function in a module? For local calls? For global calls?
> I strongly doubt so because it does not work this way.
Yes, if you care to read the changelog
I tested the sample in the livepatch and an additional sample
that patches int_to_scsilun. I'll post out that sample if there
is interest later. I also tested ftrace functionality on the
command line to check for breakage"
I've tested patching calls from module to module
(ibmvscsi to scsi_mod), within the kernel (livepatch-sample/
proc_cmdline_show). I must admit there is more testing to
> To be fair, my last mail still was not 100% correct, but the conclusion
> that the mini frame is not needed at all is invalid. Please leave it as it
> was, I'm working on a test / demonstrator for how to handle these.
Why, the magic will be in the patched function? Please share the test/demonstrator
>> + * Why do we need this?
>> + * After patching we need to return to a trampoline return function
>> + * that guarantees that we restore the TOC and return to the correct
>> + * caller back
>> + */
>> + std r2, 24(r1) /* save TOC now, unconditionally. */
>> + subf r0, r2, r0 /* Calculate offset from current TOC */
>> + stw r0, 12(r1) /* Of the final LR and save it in CR+4 */
>> + bl 5f
>> +5: mflr r12
>> + addi r12, r12, (klp_return_helper + 4 - .)@l
>> + std r12, LRSAVE(r1)
>> + * maybe inserting a klp_return_helper frame or not.
>> + ld r2, 24(r1) /* restore TOC (saved by ftrace_caller) */
>> + lwa r0, 12(r1) /* Load from CR+4, offset of LR w.r.t TOC */
>> + add r0, r0, r2 /* Add the offset to current TOC */
>> + std r0, LRSAVE(r1) /* save the real return address */
>> + mtlr r0
>> + blr
> NAKed-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@xxxxxxx>
Why? For using CR+4 or removing the frame? Or you believe there is a better way to
handle this that work, IOW what is broken?