[PATCH 01/22] ARM: add mechanism for late code patching

[Cyril Chemparathy]

Hi Nicolas,

On 8/4/2012 1:38 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Cyril Chemparathy wrote:
>
>> The original phys_to_virt/virt_to_phys patching implementation relied on early
>> patching prior to MMU initialization.  On PAE systems running out of >4G
>> address space, this would have entailed an additional round of patching after
>> switching over to the high address space.
>>
>> The approach implemented here conceptually extends the original PHYS_OFFSET
>> patching implementation with the introduction of "early" patch stubs.  Early
>> patch code is required to be functional out of the box, even before the patch
>> is applied.  This is implemented by inserting functional (but inefficient)
>> load code into the .patch.code init section.  Having functional code out of
>> the box then allows us to defer the init time patch application until later
>> in the init sequence.
>>
>> In addition to fitting better with our need for physical address-space
>> switch-over, this implementation should be somewhat more extensible by virtue
>> of its more readable (and hackable) C implementation.  This should prove
>> useful for other similar init time specialization needs, especially in light
>> of our multi-platform kernel initiative.
>>
>> This code has been boot tested in both ARM and Thumb-2 modes on an ARMv7
>> (Cortex-A8) device.
>>
>> Note: the obtuse use of stringified symbols in patch_stub() and
>> early_patch_stub() is intentional.  Theoretically this should have been
>> accomplished with formal operands passed into the asm block, but this requires
>> the use of the 'c' modifier for instantiating the long (e.g. .long %c0).
>> However, the 'c' modifier has been found to ICE certain versions of GCC, and
>> therefore we resort to stringified symbols here.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cyril Chemparathy <cyril at ti.com>
>
> This looks very nice.  Comments below.
>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/include/asm/patch.h  |  123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Please find a better name for this file. "patch" is way too generic and
> commonly referring to something different. "runtime-patching" or similar
> would be more descriptive.
>

Sure.  Does init-patch sound about right?  We need to reflect the fact 
that this is intended for init-time patching only.

>>   arch/arm/kernel/module.c      |    4 +
>>   arch/arm/kernel/setup.c       |  175 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> This is complex enough to waarrant aa separate source file.  Please move
> those additions out from setup.c.  Given a good name for the header file
> above, the c file could share the same name.
>

Sure.

>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..a89749f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/patch.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
>> +/*
>> + *  arch/arm/include/asm/patch.h
>> + *
>> + *  Copyright (C) 2012, Texas Instruments
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + *
>> + *  Note: this file should not be included by non-asm/.h files
>> + */
>> +#ifndef __ASM_ARM_PATCH_H
>> +#define __ASM_ARM_PATCH_H
>> +
>> +#include <linux/stringify.h>
>> +
>> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>> +
>> extern unsigned __patch_table_begin, __patch_table_end;
>
> You could use "exttern void __patch_table_begin" so those symbols don't
> get any type that could be misused by mistake, while you still can take
> their addresses.
>

Sure.

>> +
>> +struct patch_info {
>> +	u32	 type;
>> +	u32	 size;
>
> Given the possibly large number of table entries, some effort at making
> those entries as compact as possible should be considered. For instance,
> the type and size fields could be u8's and insn_end pointer replaced
> with another size expressed as an u8.  By placing all the u8's together
> they would occupy a single word by themselves.  The assembly stub would
> only need a .align statement to reflect the c structure's padding.
>

Thanks, will try and pack this struct up.

> [...]
>
> Did you verify with some test program that your patching routines do
> produce the same opcodes as the assembled equivalent for all possible
> shift values?  Especially for Thumb2 code which isn't as trivial to get
> right as the ARM one.
>

Not quite all, but I'm sure I can conjure up an off-line test harness to 
do so.


Much appreciated feedback.  Thanks for taking a look.

-- 
Thanks
- Cyril