On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:37:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> @@ -319,96 +316,66 @@ forced it is guaranteed that no task sleeps or runs in
> the old code.
> 5. Livepatch life-cycle
> =======================
>
> -Livepatching defines four basic operations that define the life cycle of each
> -live patch: registration, enabling, disabling and unregistration. There are
> -several reasons why it is done this way.
> +Livepatches get automatically enabled when the respective module is loaded.
(only true if the module enables the patch in its init function)
> @@ -502,6 +483,9 @@ static void klp_free_objects(struct klp_patch *patch)
> }
>
> /*
> + * The synchronous variant is needed when the patch is freed in
> + * the klp_enable_patch() error paths.
> + *
Hm? This comment seems confusingly out of context.
> @@ -528,6 +512,23 @@ static void klp_free_patch_finish(struct klp_patch
> *patch)
> kobject_put(&patch->kobj);
> wait_for_completion(&patch->finish);
> }
> +
> + /* Put the module after the last access to struct klp_patch. */
> + if (patch->module_put)
> + module_put(patch->mod);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * The livepatch might be freed from sysfs interface created by the patch.
> + * This work allows to wait until the interface is destroyed in a separate
> + * context.
> + */
> +static void klp_free_patch_fn(struct work_struct *work)
To clarify that it's a work function, how about calling it
"klp_free_patch_work_fn"?
> static int klp_init_func(struct klp_object *obj, struct klp_func *func)
> @@ -642,116 +643,38 @@ static int klp_init_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> struct klp_object *obj;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!patch->objs)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - mutex_lock(&klp_mutex);
> -
> patch->enabled = false;
> - patch->forced = false;
> + patch->module_put = false;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&patch->list);
> + INIT_WORK(&patch->free_work, klp_free_patch_fn);
> init_completion(&patch->finish);
>
> + if (!patch->objs)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /*
> + * A reference is taken on the patch module to prevent it from being
> + * unloaded.
> + */
> + if (!try_module_get(patch->mod))
> + return -ENODEV;
This comment isn't needed. It describes what try_module_get() does,
which is common kernel knowledge.
> + patch->module_put = true;
The naming and semantics of the 'module_put' field are a little
confusing. It's false in two cases:
1) try_module_get() failure
2) forced patch
Maybe we can get rid of the need for the first case by moving the
try_module_get() call to klp_enable_patch(), before calling
klp_init_lists(). Then klp_free_patch_finish() will always be called
with a module reference, so it doesn't have to check the 'module_put'
field.
We'd still need it for the force case, but then it can just be called
'forced' again.
> --- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.c
> +++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.c
> @@ -184,22 +184,11 @@ static struct klp_patch patch = {
>
> static int livepatch_callbacks_demo_init(void)
> {
> - int ret;
> -
> - ret = klp_register_patch(&patch);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> - ret = klp_enable_patch(&patch);
> - if (ret) {
> - WARN_ON(klp_unregister_patch(&patch));
> - return ret;
> - }
> - return 0;
> + return klp_enable_patch(&patch);
> }
>
> static void livepatch_callbacks_demo_exit(void)
> {
> - WARN_ON(klp_unregister_patch(&patch));
> }
This module exit function is no longer needed.
>
> module_init(livepatch_callbacks_demo_init);
> diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
> b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
> index de30d1ba4791..88afb708a48d 100644
> --- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
> +++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-sample.c
> @@ -66,22 +66,11 @@ static struct klp_patch patch = {
>
> static int livepatch_init(void)
> {
> - int ret;
> -
> - ret = klp_register_patch(&patch);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> - ret = klp_enable_patch(&patch);
> - if (ret) {
> - WARN_ON(klp_unregister_patch(&patch));
> - return ret;
> - }
> - return 0;
> + return klp_enable_patch(&patch);
> }
>
> static void livepatch_exit(void)
> {
> - WARN_ON(klp_unregister_patch(&patch));
> }
Ditto.
--
Josh
