linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

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: <20171002111814.GE8637@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:18:14 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, jeyu@...nel.org,
        jikos@...nel.org, lpechacek@...e.cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

On Wed 2017-08-30 14:51:16, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2017-08-11 16:11:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > Now "force" has two meanings, which is a little confusing.  What do you
> > > > think about just having two separate write-only sysfs flags?
> > > > 
> > > >   echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/signal
> > > >   echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/force
> > > 
> > > I like the simplicity but I wonder if there might be more actions
> > > that need to be forced in the future. Then this might cause
> > > confusion.
> > > 
> > > For example, we have force_module_load attribute in kGraft.
> > > It allows to load a module even when it is refused by a livepatch.
> > > It is handy when there is a harmless bug in the patch.
> 
> We can add force_module_load attribute too in that case. But I see your 
> point, I just don't think it would be that serious as far as confusion is 
> concerned.
> 
> > What if we put the flags in the per-patch dir?
> > 
> >   /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/signal
> >   /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/force
> > 
> > That seems pretty unambiguous.  The "force" is specific to the patch, it
> > clearly means we are forcing the patch.
> 
> Petr, would this solve your worries?

I like it.

Best Regards,
Petr