| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:44:29 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> Cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org, sjenning@...hat.com, jkosina@...e.cz, vojtech@...e.cz, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC kgr on klp 0/9] kGraft on the top of KLP On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 02:20:09PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Hello, > > this is a patchset which teaches the Kernel Live Patching to be > consistent when patching with the use of the kGraft approach [1]. > Besides helpers, the set adds support for consistency models, > implements the kGraft consistency model, and finally allows for > sending signals to complete the patching process quickly (but still > safely). > > Currently we have only two consistency models: > * none > * kGraft > > None is the one which was present before the patchset and that one > indeed guarantees no consistency at all. LEAVE_FUNCTION and > SWITCH_FUNCTION as was described earlier [2]. kGraft is based on the > well-known RCU principle and every process is converted to the patched > world on its own, safely. kGraft is LEAVE_KERNEL and SWITCH_THREAD. Why do we need multiple consistency models? What are the advantages of the kGraft model over the kGraft/kpatch hybrid model [1]? [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1423499826.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists