linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: add shadow variable sample program

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:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:56:37 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] livepatch: add shadow variable sample program

> > > I often wonder whether it's really a good idea to even allow the
> > > unloading of patch modules at all.  It adds complexity to the livepatch
> > > code.  Is it worth it?  I don't have an answer but I'd be interested in
> > > other people's opinion.
> > 
> > I could imagine a situation when a livepatch causes, for example,
> > performance, problems on a server because of the redirection
> > to the new code. Then it might be handy to disable the patch
> > and ftrace handlers completely.
> 
> Fair enough, though it sounds theoretical.  It would be good to know
> we're supporting actual real world use cases.

We distribute cumulative "replace_all" patches at SUSE. replace_all means 
that all previous patches are reverted in the process of application. All 
livepatch modules with zero refcount are removed. This keeps a number of 
loaded modules low and system's state well defined, which is always a good 
thing, because a customer might run into problems and we'd have to debug 
it.

It is true that it is a limitation too. Especially for state changes and 
data structure modifications. Sometimes it is easy to patch a system, but 
impossible to unpatch it. Because we don't have a consistency on a state 
level, only on a task/process level. But I perceive this also as an 
advantage. I have to always know what a livepatch does exactly and I 
discovered couple of problems just because I had to think about unloading 
of modules.

Miroslav