linux-kernel - Re: live kernel upgrades (was: live kernel patching design)

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:	Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:40:31 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: live kernel upgrades (was: live kernel patching design)

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 08:37:58AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:46:39AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >  - the whole 'consistency model' talk both projects employ 
> >    reminds me of how we grew 'security modules': where 
> >    people running various mediocre projects would in the 
> >    end not seek to create a superior upstream project, but 
> >    would seek the 'consensus' in the form of cross-acking 
> >    each others' patches as long as their own code got 
> >    upstream as well ...
> 
> That's just not the case.  The consistency models were used to describe
> the features and the pros and cons of the different approaches.
> 
> The RFC is not a compromise to get "cross-acks".  IMO it's an
> improvement on both kpatch and kGraft.  See the RFC cover letter [1] and
> the original consistency model discussion [2] for more details.

BTW, I proposed that with my RFC we only need a _single_ consistency
model.

Yes, there have been some suggestions that we should support multiple
consistency models, but I haven't heard any good reasons that would
justify the added complexity.

-- 
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/