From: Thomas Gleixner
Sent: November 4, 2018 at 8:58:20 PM GMT
> To: Nadav Amit <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>, [email protected]>,
> [email protected]>, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]>, Borislav Petkov
> <[email protected]>, Dave Hansen <[email protected]>, Jiri Kosina
> <[email protected]>, Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>, Kees Cook
> <[email protected]>, Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex
> in text_poke*()"
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> text_mutex is expected to be held before text_poke() is called, but we
>> cannot add a lockdep assertion since kgdb does not take it, and instead
>> *supposedly* ensures the lock is not taken and will not be acquired by
>> any other core while text_poke() is running.
>>
>> The reason for the "supposedly" comment is that it is not entirely clear
>> that this would be the case if gdb_do_roundup is zero.
>>
>> Add a comment to clarify this behavior, and restore the assertions as
>> they were before the recent commit.
>
> It restores nothing. It just removes the assertion.
Sorry - wrong commit log. There were no other assertions before.
>
>> This partially reverts commit 9222f606506c ("x86/alternatives:
>> Lockdep-enforce text_mutex in text_poke*()")
>
> That opens up the same can of worms again, which took us a while to close.
I’m surprised. This patch only removes one assertion that was added two
months ago.
> Can we please instead split out the text_poke() code into a helper function
> and have two callers:
>
> text_poke() which contains the assert
>
> text_poke_kgdb() which does not
Sure. I will send another version once I realize how to deal with the other
concerns that Peter and Andy raised.
Regards,
Nadav
