Re: klp_task_patch: was: [RFC PATCH v2 17/18] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I have missed that the two commands are called with preemption
> disabled. So, I had the following crazy scenario in mind:
> 
> 
> CPU0				CPU1
> 
> klp_enable_patch()
> 
>   klp_target_state = KLP_PATCHED;
> 
>   for_each_task()
>      set TIF_PENDING_PATCH
> 
> 				# task 123
> 
> 				if (klp_patch_pending(current)
> 				  klp_patch_task(current)
> 
>                                     clear TIF_PENDING_PATCH
> 
> 				    smp_rmb();
> 
> 				    # switch to assembly of
> 				    # klp_patch_task()
> 
> 				    mov klp_target_state, %r12
> 
> 				    # interrupt and schedule
> 				    # another task
> 
> 
>   klp_reverse_transition();
> 
>     klp_target_state = KLP_UNPATCHED;
> 
>     klt_try_to_complete_transition()
> 
>       task = 123;
>       if (task->patch_state == klp_target_state;
>          return 0;
> 
>     => task 123 is in target state and does
>     not block conversion
> 
>   klp_complete_transition()
> 
> 
>   # disable previous patch on the stack
>   klp_disable_patch();
> 
>     klp_target_state = KLP_UNPATCHED;
>   
>   
> 				    # task 123 gets scheduled again
> 				    lea %r12, task->patch_state
> 
> 				    => it happily stores an outdated
> 				    state
> 

Thanks for the clear explanation, this helps a lot.

> This is why the two functions should get called with preemption
> disabled. We should document it at least. I imagine that we will
> use them later also in another context and nobody will remember
> this crazy scenario.
> 
> Well, even disabled preemption does not help. The process on
> CPU1 might be also interrupted by an NMI and do some long
> printk in it.
> 
> IMHO, the only safe approach is to call klp_patch_task()
> only for "current" on a safe place. Then this race is harmless.
> The switch happen on a safe place, so that it does not matter
> into which state the process is switched.

I'm not sure about this solution.  When klp_complete_transition() is
called, we need all tasks to be patched, for good.  We don't want any of
them to randomly switch to the wrong state at some later time in the
middle of a future patch operation.  How would changing klp_patch_task()
to only use "current" prevent that?

> By other words, the task state might be updated only
> 
>    + by the task itself on a safe place
>    + by other task when the updated on is sleeping on a safe place
> 
> This should be well documented and the API should help to avoid
> a misuse.

I think we could fix it to be safe for future callers who might not have
preemption disabled with a couple of changes to klp_patch_task():
disabling preemption and testing/clearing the TIF_PATCH_PENDING flag
before changing the patch state:

  void klp_patch_task(struct task_struct *task)
  {
  	preempt_disable();
  
  	if (test_and_clear_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_PATCH_PENDING))
  		task->patch_state = READ_ONCE(klp_target_state);
  
  	preempt_enable();
  }

We would also need a synchronize_sched() after the patching is complete,
either at the end of klp_try_complete_transition() or in
klp_complete_transition().  That would make sure that all existing calls
to klp_patch_task() are done.

-- 
Josh