[PATCH v3] kernel/module_64.c: Add REL24 relocation support of livepatch symbols

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:34:29PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > So, just brainstorming a bit, here are the possible solutions I can
> > > think of:
> > >
> > > a) Create a special klp stub for such calls (as in Kamalesh's patch)
> > >
> > > b) Have kpatch-build rewrite the function to insert nops after calls to
> > >    previously-local functions.  This would also involve adjusting the
> > >    offsets of intra-function branches and relocations which come
> > >    afterwards in the same section.  And also patching up the DWARF
> > >    debuginfo, if we care about that (I think we do).  And also patching
> > >    up the jump tables which GCC sometimes creates for switch statements.
> > >    Yuck.  I'm pretty sure this is a horrible idea.
> > 
> > It's fairly horrible. It might be *less* horrible if you generated an
> > assembly listing using the compiler, modified that, and then fed that
> > through the assembler and linker.

Ah, that would work a lot better.

> > > c) Create a new GCC flag which treats all calls as global, which can be
> > >    used by kpatch-build to generate the right code (assuming this flag
> > >    doesn't already exist).  This would be a good option, I think.
> > 
> > That's not impossible, but I doubt it will be all that popular with the
> > toolchain folks who'd have to implement it :)  It will also take a long
> > time to percolate out to users.
> 
> BTDT ;-)

Yeah, maybe that's not so realistic.

> > > d) Have kpatch-build do some other kind of transformation?  For example,
> > >    maybe it could generate klp stubs which the callee calls into.  Each
> > >    klp stub could then do a proper global call to the SHN_LIVEPATCH
> > >    symbol.
> > 
> > That could work.
> Indeed. There is no reason to load that off onto the kernel module loader.

I agree that doing the same work in tooling would be better than adding
complexity to the kernel.

> > > Do I understand the problem correctly?  Do the potential solutions make
> > > sense?  Any other possible solutions I missed?
> > 
> > Possibly, I'm not really across how kpatch works in detail and what the
> > constraints are.
> > 
> > One option would be to detect any local calls made by the patched
> > function and pull those in as well - ie. make them part of the patch.
> > The pathological case could obviously end up pulling in every function
> > in the kernel, but in practice that's probably unlikely. It already
> > happens to some extent anyway via inlining.

That's definitely a possibility, but I'd rather not go there because it
increases risk and cognitive load.

> > If modifying the source is an option, a sneaky solution is to mark the
> > local functions as weak, which means the compiler/linker has to assume
> > they could become global calls.

That could work, but it means the patch author has to modify the patch.
I'd rather have tooling hide this problem somehow.

> This might also be doable with a gcc "plugin", which would not require changes
> to the compiler itself.

Hm, that's not a bad idea.

> OTOH there's no such thing as a weak static function...

Yeah.  Instead of weak, maybe just make them global (remove the
"static")?

Anyway, thanks for the ideas.  I may try them out and see what sticks.

-- 
Josh