> * H. Peter Anvin (
hpa@zytor.com) wrote:
>> On 01/12/2010 06:06 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> * H. Peter Anvin (
hpa@zytor.com) wrote:
>>>> On 01/12/2010 08:26 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
>>>>> Add text_poke_fixup() which takes a fixup address to where a processor
>>>>> jumps if it hits the modifying address while code modifying.
>>>>> text_poke_fixup() does following steps for this purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Setup int3 handler for fixup.
>>>>> 2. Put a breakpoint (int3) on the first byte of modifying region,
>>>>> and synchronize code on all CPUs.
>>>>> 3. Modify other bytes of modifying region, and synchronize code on all CPUs.
>>>>> 4. Modify the first byte of modifying region, and synchronize code
>>>>> on all CPUs.
>>>>> 5. Clear int3 handler.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We (Intel OTC) have been able to get an *unofficial* answer as to the
>>>> validity of this procedure; specifically as it applies to Intel hardware
>>>> (obviously). We are working on getting an officially approved answer,
>>>> but as far as we currently know, the procedure as outlined above should
>>>> work on all Intel hardware. In fact, we believe the synchronization in
>>>> step 3 is in fact unnecessary (as the synchronization in step 4 provides
>>>> sufficient guard.)
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> This is great news! Thanks to Intel OTC and yourself for looking into
>>> this. In the immediate values patches, I am doing the synchronization at
>>> the end of step (3) to ensure that all remote CPUs issue read memory
>>> barriers, so the stores to the instruction are done in this order:
>>>
>>> spin lock
>>> store int3 to 1st byte
>>> smp_wmb()
>>> sync all cores
>>> store new instruction in all but 1st byte
>>> smp_wmb()
>>> issue smp_rmb() on all cores (a sync all cores has this effect)
>>> store new instruction to 1st byte
>>> send IPI to all cores (or call synchronize_sched()) to wait for all
>>> breakpoint handlers to complete.
>>> spin unlock
>>>
>>> So the question is: are these wmb/rmb pairs actually needed ? As the
>>> instruction fetch is not performed by instructions per se, I doubt a
>>> rmb() will have any effect on them. I always prefer to stay on the safe
>>> side, but it wouldn't hurt to know.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think the smp_rmb() has any function.
>
> OK, that's good to know.
>
>>
>> However, you're being quite inconsistent in your terminology here. The
>> assumption above is that the "synchronize code on all CPU" step is
>> sending an IPI to all cores and waiting for it to return, so that each
>> core has executed IPI/IRET before continuation.
>
> To be strictly correct, we cannot assume that the IPI handler issues IRET
> before signaling its completion. It's rather the other way around.
> This is why I add a smp_mb() in the IPI handler for the "synchronize
> code on all CPUs" step.
>
>>
>> It is *not* necessary to wait for the breakpoint handlers to return, as
>> long as they will get to IRET eventually, since IRET is a jump and a
>> serializing instruction.
>
> Ah, I see. So the added smp_mb() would not be needed then, as long as we
> know that the other CPUs either are currently running the IPI handler or
> have executed it. IOW: they will execute IRET very soon or they just
> executed it since the int3 have been written. I am a bit concerned about
> NMIs coming in this race window, but as they need to have started after
> we have put the breakpoint, that should be OK. (note: entry_*.S
> modifications are needed to support nesting breakpoint handlers in NMIs)
>
>>
>>> Hrm. Assuming we have a spinlock protecting all this, given that we
>>> synchronize all cores at step (4) _after_ removing the breakpoint, and
>>> given that the breakpoint handler is an interrupt gate (thus executes
>>> with interrupts off), I am inclined to think that sending the IPIs at
>>> the end of step (4) (and waiting for them to complete) should be enough
>>> to ensure that all in-flight breakpoint handlers for this site have
>>> completed their execution. This would mean that we only have to keep
>>> track of a single site at a time. Or am I missing something ?
>>
>> Yes: the whole point was that you can omit the synchronization in step 4
>> if you leave the breakpoint handler in place (I said "omit step 5", but
>> that wasn't really what I meant.)
