linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 00/10] livepatch: Atomic replace feature

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

Date:   Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:09:48 -0500
From:   Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/10] livepatch: Atomic replace feature

On 03/08/2018 10:01 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2018-03-07 16:55:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>> Running against v10, callbacks seem to be good up until I disable an
>> atomic replace patch.  My understanding is that the original patch's
>> unpatch callbacks should be skipped (as they were).  I was surprised to
>> see that atomic replacement patch only ran it's post-unpatch callback.
> 
> Great catch!
> 
> I guess that it is caused by the heuristic used in
> klp_unpatch_object() to decide whether the object is patched
> or not.
> 
> We need to change the state only when manipulating the
> statically defined functions.
> 
> Thanks a lot for so extensive testing!!!

Sorry for not getting to this series sooner.  I'm trying to refit these
tests into a kselftest so we can more easily reuse them.  Still hacking
away at it, but I'll post when something soon to start a livepatch
selftests conversation :)

-- Joe