linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] livepatch: consistency model

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: <20150310162319.GN10815@treble.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:23:19 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>
Cc:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] livepatch: consistency model

On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 11:31:12AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> This patch set implements a livepatch consistency model, targeted for 3.21.
> Now that we have a solid livepatch code base, this is the biggest remaining
> missing piece.
> 
> This code stems from the design proposal made by Vojtech [1] in November.  It
> makes live patching safer in general.  Specifically, it allows you to apply
> patches which change function prototypes.  It also lays the groundwork for
> future code changes which will enable data and data semantic changes.
> 
> It's basically a hybrid of kpatch and kGraft, combining kpatch's backtrace
> checking with kGraft's per-task consistency.  When patching, tasks are
> carefully transitioned from the old universe to the new universe.  A task can
> only be switched to the new universe if it's not using a function that is to be
> patched or unpatched.  After all tasks have moved to the new universe, the
> patching process is complete.
[...]

Just an update on the status of this RFC.  Thanks to everybody for all
the useful comments.  I plan to incorporate the resulting changes in an
eventual v2 of this patch set.

But, as Peter and Ingo have pointed out, stack traces are indeed
unreliable.  I have some ideas about how to improve them, coming soon in
another RFC, which will be a prerequisite for this patch set.

-- 
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/