linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: disable/enable_patch manners for interdependent patches

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: <54C0C8CF.8070804@huawei.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:54:23 +0800
From:	Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
To:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
CC:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
	<live-patching@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lizefan@...wei.com>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	<zhangdianfang@...wei.com>, <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: disable/enable_patch manners for interdependent
 patches

On 2015/1/22 16:39, Li Bin wrote:
> On 2015/1/22 11:51, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:42:29AM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>>> On 2015/1/21 22:08, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Li Bin wrote:
>>>> By this you limit the definition of the patch inter-dependency to just 
>>>> symbols. But that's not the only way how patches can depend on it other -- 
>>>> the dependency can be semantical.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree with you. But I think the other dependencies such as semantical
>>> dependency should be judged by the user, like reverting a patch from git repository.
>>> Right?
>>
>> But with live patching, there are two users: the patch creator (who
>> creates the patch module) and the end user (who loads it on their
>> system).
>>
>> We can assume the patch creator knows what he's doing, but the end user
>> doesn't always know or care about low level details like patch
>> dependencies.  The easiest and safest way to protect the end user is the
>> current approach, which assumes that each patch depends on all
>> previously applied patches.
> 
> But then, the feature that disable patch dynamically is useless.
> For example, if user find a bug be introduced by the last patch and disable
> it directly, the new patch is no longer allowed from now unless enable the
> old patch firstly but there is a risk window by this way.
> 

Ok, in this case we can unregister the old patch firstly.
But it seems that the feature that enable/disable patch dynamically indeed
useless. (Its value is only for the last patch to enable or disable.)

>>
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> .
> 


--
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/