Re: Oops caused by race between livepatch and ftrace

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 21 May 2019 11:42:27 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hm.  I suppose using ftrace_lock might be less risky since that lock is
> only used internally by ftrace (up until now).  But I think it would
> also make less sense because the text_mutex is supposed to protect code
> patching.  And presumably ftrace_lock is supposed to be ftrace-specific.
> 
> Here's the latest patch, still using text_mutex.  I added some lockdep
> assertions to ensure the permissions toggling functions are always
> called with text_mutex.  It's running through 0-day right now.  I can
> try to run it through various tests with CONFIG_LOCKDEP.

Yeah, text_mutex probably does make more sense. ftrace_mutex was around
before text_mutex as ftrace was the first one to do the runtime
patching (after boot has finished). It wasn't until we introduced
text_poke that we decided to create the text_mutex locking as well.

> 
> 
> From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] livepatch: Fix ftrace module text permissions race

Thanks,

I'll try to find some time to test this as well.

-- Steve