Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] x86/alternative: assert text_mutex is taken

From: Nadav Amit
Date: Thu Aug 30 2018 - 01:23:12 EST

at 7:26 PM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:00:06 -0700
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 08:44:47PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> at 1:13 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 07:36:22PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>> at 10:11 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> at 1:59 AM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 01:11:42 -0700
>>>>>>> Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Use lockdep to ensure that text_mutex is taken when text_poke() is
>>>>>>>> called.
>>>>>>>> Actually it is not always taken, specifically when it is called by kgdb,
>>>>>>>> so take the lock in these cases.
>>>>>>> Can we really take a mutex in kgdb context?
>>>>>>> kgdb_arch_remove_breakpoint
>>>>>>> <- dbg_deactivate_sw_breakpoints
>>>>>>> <- kgdb_reenter_check
>>>>>>> <- kgdb_handle_exception
>>>>>>> <- __kgdb_notify
>>>>>>> <- kgdb_ll_trap
>>>>>>> <- do_int3
>>>>>>> <- kgdb_notify
>>>>>>> <- die notifier
>>>>>>> kgdb_arch_set_breakpoint
>>>>>>> <- dbg_activate_sw_breakpoints
>>>>>>> <- kgdb_reenter_check
>>>>>>> <- kgdb_handle_exception
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Both seems called in exception context, so we can not take a mutex lock.
>>>>>>> I think kgdb needs a special path.
>>>>>> You are correct, but I donât want a special path. Presumably text_mutex is
>>>>>> guaranteed not to be taken according to the code.
>>>>>> So I guess the only concern is lockdep. Do you see any problem if I change
>>>>>> mutex_lock() into mutex_trylock()? It should always succeed, and I can add a
>>>>>> warning and a failure path if it fails for some reason.
>>>>> Err.. This will not work. I think I will drop this patch, since I cannot
>>>>> find a proper yet simple assertion. Creating special path just for the
>>>>> assertion seems wrong.
>>>> It's probably worth expanding the comment for text_poke() to call out
>>>> the kgdb case and reference kgdb_arch_{set,remove}_breakpoint(), whose
>>>> code and comments make it explicitly clear why its safe for them to
>>>> call text_poke() without acquiring the lock. Might prevent someone
>>>> from going down this path again in the future.
>>> I thought that the whole point of the patch was to avoid comments, and
>>> instead enforce the right behavior. I donât understand well enough kgdb
>>> code, so I cannot attest it does the right thing. What happens if
>>> kgdb_do_roundup==0?
>> As is, the comment is wrong because there are obviously cases where
>> text_poke() is called without text_mutex being held. I can't attest
>> to the kgdb code either. My thought was to document the exception so
>> that if someone does want to try and enforce the right behavior they
>> can dive right into the problem instead of having to learn of the kgdb
>> gotcha the hard way. Maybe a FIXME is the right approach?
> No, kgdb ensures that the text_mutex has not been held right before
> calling text_poke. So they also take care the text_mutex. I guess
> kgdb_arch_{set,remove}_breakpoint() is supposed to be run under
> a special circumstance, like stopping all other threads/cores.
> In that case, we can just check the text_mutex is not locked.

I assumed so too, but after looking at the code, I am not sure that this is
the case when gdb_do_roundup==0.

> Anyway, kgdb is a very rare courner case. I think if CONFIG_KGDB is
> enabled, lockdep and any assertion should be disabled, since kgdb
> can tweak anything in the kernel with unexpected ways...

Call me lazy, but I really do not want to debug syzkaller failures due to
this issue (now or in the future). If the assertion is known to be
incorrect, even in a corner case, I see no reason to have it and I certainly
do not want to be the one that added itâ