Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1346295 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] livepatch/module: remove livepatch module notifier

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] livepatch/module: remove livepatch module notifier Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> - 2016-03-01 03:10 +0100
    Re: livepatch/module: remove livepatch module notifier Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com> - 2016-03-01 04:10 +0100

#1346295 — Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] livepatch/module: remove livepatch module notifier

Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> > Remove the livepatch module notifier in favor of directly enabling and
>> > disabling patches to modules in the module loader. Hard-coding the
>> > function calls ensures that ftrace_module_enable() is run before
>> > klp_module_coming() during module load, and that klp_module_going() is
>> > run before ftrace_release_mod() during module unload. This way, ftrace
>> > and livepatch code is run in the correct order during the module
>> > load/unload sequence without dependence on the module notifier call chain.
>> >
>> > This fixes a notifier ordering issue in which the ftrace module notifier
>> > (and hence ftrace_module_enable()) for coming modules was being called
>> > after klp_module_notify(), which caused livepatch modules to initialize
>> > incorrectly.
>> 
>> Without a Fixes: line, it's not absolutely clear whether this needs
>> CC:stable, needs to go to Linus now, or can wait for the next merge
>> window.
>> 
>> I *think* you want all four merged this merge window, and 3 and 4 are
>> required to fix a regression introduced since 4.4...
>
> Your understanding is correct; #3 and #4 are needed to fix a 4.4 
> regression. It makes sense for the whole lot go to together, but for #1 
> and #2 I absolutely need your Ack before I take it to my tree, as I don't 
> want to be merging this behind your back.
>
> Once you Ack #1 and #2, I plan to take this to Linus immediately so that 
> we avoid doing these changes as very last minute.

Sorry Jiri, I am on paternity leave.  Am happy with all these patches;
please use your best judgement:

Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

Thanks,
Rusty.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1346339 — Re: livepatch/module: remove livepatch module notifier

+++ Rusty Russell [29/02/16 11:00 +1030]:
>Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> writes:
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>>> > Remove the livepatch module notifier in favor of directly enabling and
>>> > disabling patches to modules in the module loader. Hard-coding the
>>> > function calls ensures that ftrace_module_enable() is run before
>>> > klp_module_coming() during module load, and that klp_module_going() is
>>> > run before ftrace_release_mod() during module unload. This way, ftrace
>>> > and livepatch code is run in the correct order during the module
>>> > load/unload sequence without dependence on the module notifier call chain.
>>> >
>>> > This fixes a notifier ordering issue in which the ftrace module notifier
>>> > (and hence ftrace_module_enable()) for coming modules was being called
>>> > after klp_module_notify(), which caused livepatch modules to initialize
>>> > incorrectly.
>>>
>>> Without a Fixes: line, it's not absolutely clear whether this needs
>>> CC:stable, needs to go to Linus now, or can wait for the next merge
>>> window.
>>>
>>> I *think* you want all four merged this merge window, and 3 and 4 are
>>> required to fix a regression introduced since 4.4...
>>
>> Your understanding is correct; #3 and #4 are needed to fix a 4.4
>> regression. It makes sense for the whole lot go to together, but for #1
>> and #2 I absolutely need your Ack before I take it to my tree, as I don't
>> want to be merging this behind your back.
>>
>> Once you Ack #1 and #2, I plan to take this to Linus immediately so that
>> we avoid doing these changes as very last minute.
>
>Sorry Jiri, I am on paternity leave.  Am happy with all these patches;
>please use your best judgement:
>
>Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
>

Thanks Rusty. No worries, we got the regression out of the way already. :-)

Jiri, I'll resend the remaining 3 patches in the series separately,
since we've merged the ftrace patch already.

Jessica

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web