linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kpatch: dynamic kernel patching

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1405021504320.22053@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:	Fri, 2 May 2014 15:10:58 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kpatch: dynamic kernel patching

On Thu, 1 May 2014, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> kpatch vs kGraft
> ----------------
> 
> I think the biggest difference between kpatch and kGraft is how they
> ensure that the patch is applied atomically and safely.
> 
> kpatch checks the backtraces of all tasks in stop_machine() to ensure
> that no instances of the old function are running when the new function
> is applied.  I think the biggest downside of this approach is that
> stop_machine() has to idle all other CPUs during the patching process,
> so it inserts a small amount of latency (a few ms on an idle system).
> 
> Instead, kGraft uses per-task consistency: each task either sees the old
> version or the new version of the function.  This gives a consistent
> view with respect to functions, but _not_ data, because the old and new
> functions are allowed to run simultaneously and share data.  This could
> be dangerous if a patch changes how a function uses a data structure.
> The new function could make a data change that the old function wasn't
> expecting.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but with kPatch, you are also unable to 
do a "flip and forget" switch between functions that expect different 
format of in-memory data without performing a non-trivial all-memory 
lookup to find structures in question and perfoming corresponding 
transformations.

What we can do with kGraft si to perform the patching in two steps

(1) redirect to a temporary band-aid function that can handle both 
    semantics of the data (persumably in highly sub-optimal way)
(2) patching in (1) succeeds completely (kGraft claims victory), start a 
    new round of patching with redirect to the final function which 
    expects only the new semantics

This basically implies that both aproaches need "human inspection" in this 
respect anyway.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/