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: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:10:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz> To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: add (un)patch hooks > > > For the enable case, I think it would be a nice feature if we checked > > > the return code and aborted the patching operation on error. I think > > > that should be easy enough. > > > > Yeah, that should be easy. To be specific, you're only talking about > > the patching operation on the associated klp_object, not the entire > > klp_patch right? > > Oh, right, I forgot about modules. We can't stop the module from > loading, so forget that. Maybe the load hook should just return void. We can. We can stop a patch module from being loaded if there is an error coming from a hook, or we can stop a patched module (patch module is loaded) from being loaded. The latter case is not very user-friendly. We have force_load_module sysfs attribute for exactly these cases (if an admin is sure he can safely do that). It is not nice though. > > > For the unload case, it's too late to do anything, so I'd say a void > > > return code would be better. Otherwise it implies that we actually do > > > something about it. Maybe in that case we can leave it up to the user > > > to decide whether to print an error or WARN() or whatever. > > > > Good point. I can change that in v2. I agree with this point. Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists