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: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:51:47 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> Subject: Re: livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:16:22AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Jessica Yu wrote: > > > What about tasks sleeping on affected functions in uninterruptible sleep > > (possibly indefinitely)? Since all signals are ignored, we wouldn't be > > able to patch those tasks in this way, right? Would that be an > > unsupported case? > > I don't think there is any better way out of this situation than > documenting that the convergence of patching could in such cases could > take quite a lot of time (well, we can pro-actively try to detect this > situation before the patching actually start, and warn about the possible > consequences). > > But let's face it, this should be pretty uncommon, because (a) it's not > realistic for the wait times to be really indefinite (b) the task is > likely to be in TASK_KILLABLE rather than just plain TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Yeah, I think this situation -- a task sleeping on an affected function in uninterruptible state for a long period of time -- would be exceedingly rare and not something we need to worry about for now. -- Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists