From: will.deacon@arm•com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: ftrace: add support for far branches to dynamic ftrace
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:56:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170607165626.GE2669@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8kWt7yDg8hu=bJb4FrA3qGqV2jgShujqHqewDSKr1D8w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:50:10PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 7 June 2017 at 15:46, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis•org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 18:15:35 +0100
> > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm•com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > + tramp = (unsigned long *)mod->arch.ftrace_trampoline->sh_addr;
> >> > + if (tramp[0] != addr) {
> >> > + if (tramp[0] != 0) {
> >> > + pr_err("ftrace: far branches to multiple entry points unsupported inside a single module\n");
> >> > + return AARCH64_BREAK_FAULT;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + /* point the trampoline to our ftrace entry point */
> >> > + module_disable_ro(mod);
> >> > + tramp[0] = addr;
> >> > + module_enable_ro(mod, true);
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what the barrier semantics are for module_enable_ro, but I'd be
> >> inclined to stick in a smp_wmb() here to order the write of the trampoline
> >> data before the writing of the branch instruction.
> >
> > I would assume that module_disable/enable_ro() has proper barriers for
> > modifying the page tables with respect to code around it, otherwise it
> > would probably be an issues elsewhere in the kernel. Specifically in
> > the module code itself.
> >
> > I don't see how a smp_wmb() would be needed here, especially since this
> > is serialized code, and not something done by multiple CPUs.
> >
>
> But other cores could be invoking the function we are patching here,
> no? So when such a core observes (and executes) the updated
> instruction before it observes the updated target field of the
> trampoline, it will branch to address 0x0.
I think Steve's saying that the TLB invalidation buried in the set_memory_*
functions called by module_enable_ro will have sufficient barriers to order
the write of the trampoline with respect to writing the branch instruction,
but this isn't quite right because module_enable_ro is affected by things
like CONFIG_STRICT_MODULE_RWX and rodata_enabled.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-07 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-30 13:52 [PATCH v2 0/2] arm64: ftrace: fix interop issues with module PLTs Ard Biesheuvel
2017-05-30 13:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: ftrace: don't validate branch via PLT in ftrace_make_nop() Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-05 17:15 ` Will Deacon
2017-06-05 17:26 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-05-30 13:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: ftrace: add support for far branches to dynamic ftrace Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-05 17:15 ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 15:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-06-07 15:50 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-06-07 16:56 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-06-07 19:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-06-08 9:59 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170607165626.GE2669@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox