linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] livepatch: add transition notices

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c00cbd75-83f4-dcd7-a3cf-4691a0df7f62@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:45:26 -0400
From:   Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] livepatch: add transition notices

On 09/27/2017 07:49 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2017-08-31 10:53:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>> Log a few kernel debug messages at the beginning of the following livepatch
>> transition functions:
>>
>>   klp_complete_transition()
>>   klp_cancel_transition()
>>   klp_init_transition()
>>   klp_reverse_transition()
>>
>> Also update the log notice message in klp_start_transition() for similar
>> verbiage as the above messages.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
>> index 53887f0bca10..3d44a3cf27be 100644
>> --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
>> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,10 @@ static void klp_complete_transition(void)
>>  	unsigned int cpu;
>>  	bool immediate_func = false;
>>  
>> +	pr_debug("'%s': completing %s transition\n",
>> +		 klp_transition_patch->mod->name,
>> +		 klp_target_state == KLP_PATCHED ? "patching" : "unpatching");
>> +
>>  	if (klp_target_state == KLP_UNPATCHED) {
>>  		/*
>>  		 * All tasks have transitioned to KLP_UNPATCHED so we can now
>> @@ -163,6 +167,9 @@ void klp_cancel_transition(void)
>>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(klp_target_state != KLP_PATCHED))
>>  		return;
>>  
>> +	pr_debug("'%s': canceling transition, unpatching\n",
> 
> This sentence is a bit confusing. It is related to the Mirek's concern
> about that the following message would be "completing unpatching transition".
> 
> What about using something like:
> 
> 	pr_debug("'%s': canceling patching transition, going to unpatch\n",
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr

Yeah, what I had was more of a comma splice for brevity... no problem
adopting a clearer wording as you suggested.

Thanks

-- Joe