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  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:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:52:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <>
To:     Petr Mladek <>
cc:,,,,,, Andy Lutomirski <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
        Michael Ellerman <>,
        Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Petr Mladek wrote:

> On Thu 2017-08-10 12:48:12, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Currently, livepatch gradually migrate the system from an unpatched to a
> > patched state (or vice versa). Each task drops its TIF_PATCH_PENDING
> > itself when crossing the kernel/user space boundary or it is cleared
> > using the stack checking approach. If there is a task which sleeps on a
> > patched function, the whole transition can get stuck indefinitely.
> > 
> > TODO:
> > Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two
> > functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't
> > managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the
> > other hand I do not mind it much.
> What about calling the attribute?
>      transition-speedup
>      transition-urge
> In each case, I would make it more clear that the attribute
> is related to the transition attribute of each patch.

Umm... I don't like that much and those names would definitely confuse me. 
But I'm biased already.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists