Re: [PATCH 3/3] static_call: Fix static_call_update() sanity check

[Jessica Yu]

+++ Peter Zijlstra [22/03/21 17:54 +0100]:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 03:50:14PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:
>
> > It should be doable. If you want the exit sections to be treated the same as
> > module init, the following patch should stuff any exit sections into the module
> > init "region" (completely untested). Hence it should be freed together with the
> > init sections and it would identify as init through within_module_init(). Let
> > me know if this works for you.
>
> That does indeed seem to DTRT from a quick scan of module.c. Very nice
> tidy patch. I was afraid it'd be much worse.
>
> Assuming it actually works; for your Changelog:
>
> "Dynamic code patching (alternatives, jump_label and static_call) can
> have sites in __exit code, even it __exit is never executed. Therefore
> __exit must be present at runtime, at least for as long as __init code
> is.
>
> Additionally, for jump_label and static_call, the __exit sites must also
> identify as within_module_init(), such that the infrastructure is aware
> to never touch them after module init -- alternatives are only ran once
> at init and hence don't have this particular constraint.
>
> By making __exit identify as __init for UNLOAD_MODULE, the above is
> satisfied."

Thanks a lot for the changelog :-) I'll turn this into a formal patch
after some testing tomorrow.

Jessica