linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kernel Live 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: <20141106193433.GA16347@treble.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:34:33 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, kpatch@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kernel Live Patching

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:58:57AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 07:51:57PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > I don't think this specific example was generated. 

So there are two ways to use this live patching API: using a generated
module (e.g., using the kpatch-build tool) or manually compiling a
module via kbuild.

Vojtech's right, the provided example was not generated.  Maybe it
belongs in samples/livepatch?

> > 
> > I also don't think including the whole kpatch automation into the kernel
> > tree is a viable development model for it. (Same would apply for kGraft
> > automation.)
> 
> Why?  We (IMHO incorrectly) used the argument of tight coupling to put
> perf into the kernel tree.  Generating kernel live patches is way more
> integrated that it absolutely has to go into the tree to be able to do
> proper development on it in an integrated fashion.

I agree that we should also put kpatch-build (or some converged
kpatch/kGraft-build tool) into the kernel tree, because of the tight
interdependencies between it and the kernel.  I think it would make
development much easier.  Otherwise, for example, it may end up having a
lot of #ifdef hacks based on what kernel version it's targeting.

-- 
Josh
--
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/