Re: [RFC 03/16] kgr: initial code

[Jiri Slaby]

On 05/14/2014 12:41 PM, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 14 May 2014 03:42 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 05/14/2014 11:28 AM, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 30 April 2014 08:00 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Provide initial implementation. We are now able to do ftrace-based
>>>> runtime patching of the kernel code.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to that, we will provide a kgr_patcher module in the next
>>>> patch to test the functionality.
>>>
>>> Hi Jiri,
>>>
>>> Interesting! I have couple of comments:
>>>
>>> I think with kgraft (also with kpatch, though have not looked into
>>> it yet), the patched function cannot be dynamically ftraced.
>>> Though dynamic ftrace can be enabled on the new code, the user is
>>> required to know the function label of the new code. This could
>>> potentially break existing scripts. I think this should be documented.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> of course that the functions can be traced. Look, I turned on tracing
>> for capable, then patched, then turned on tracing for new_capable (which
>> is the patched function). So now, trace shows:
>>   console-kit-dae-535   [001] ...1   181.729698: capable <-vt_ioctl
>>  console-kit-dae-539   [001] ...1   181.729741: capable <-vt_ioctl
>>  console-kit-dae-541   [000] .N.1   181.906014: capable <-vt_ioctl
>>          systemd-1     [001] ...1   181.937328: capable <-SyS_epoll_ctl
>>             sshd-662   [001] ...1   246.437561: capable <-sock_setsockopt
>>             sshd-662   [001] ...1   246.437564: new_capable
>> <-sock_setsockopt
>>             sshd-662   [001] ...1   246.444790: capable <-sock_setsockopt
>>             sshd-662   [001] ...1   246.444793: new_capable
>> <-sock_setsockopt
>>      dbus-daemon-128   [000] .N.1   246.456307: capable <-SyS_epoll_ctl
>>      dbus-daemon-128   [000] ...1   246.456611: new_capable <-SyS_epoll_ctl
>>
>>
>> There is no limitation thanks to the use of the ftrace subsystem. We are
>> just another user, i.e. another piece of code called in a loop for a
>> particular fentry location.
> 
> Yes true. What I intended to mention is that: the trace is turned on
> for "capable" then the function is patched. Eventually, once the patch
> is finalized, there will be no trace log for "capable". Someone tracing
> the function "capable", not aware of patching, may think that it has not
> been invoked. The user, hence, is expected to start tracing
> "new_capable". I think this should be documented.

As you can see in the trace log above, no. fentry of capable is still
traced (and new_capable is traced along)...

> What if someone turns on tracing for "capable" after it is patched?
> Will it overwrite the slow/fast stub?

Nope, it would look like in the example above.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs
--
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/