linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Allow loading modules on architectures without HAVE_RELIABLE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:12:59 +0100 (CET)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        jbaron@...mai.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Allow loading modules on architectures
 without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Petr Mladek wrote:

> On Fri 2017-12-08 18:25:23, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Now that immediate feature was removed, it is not possible to load
> > livepatch modules on architectures without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE. Fix
> > it by removing guilty check in klp_register_patch().
> > 
> > The architectures without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE will now rely only on
> > kernelspace/userspace boundary switching, the (fake) signal and force
> > feature.
> 
> I do not thing that this is a good idea. It encourages people to use
> the force feature. They might get used to it.
> 
> If people are going to provide livepatches, they should be capable
> enough to provide a kernel where it is allowed. IMHO, the upstream
> kernel should not support bad/dirty practices out of box.

You're probably right.

It is true that with immediate gone the only reasonable thing for all 
supported architectures is to provide HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE.

Miroslav