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  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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:13:18 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
        lpechacek@...e.cz, pavel@....cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] livepatch: force transition process to finish

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:48:53PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> If a task sleeps in a set of patched functions uninterruptedly, it could
> block the whole transition process indefinitely.  Thus it may be useful
> to clear its TIF_PATCH_PENDING to allow the process to finish.

The phrase "transition process" (here and in the patch title) confused
me a little bit, since elsewhere we just call it "transition".

> +static ssize_t force_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> +			   const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	bool val;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * klp_mutex lock is not grabbed here intentionally. It is not really
> +	 * needed. The race window is harmless and grabbing the lock would only
> +	 * hold the action back.
> +	 */
> +	if (!klp_transition_patch)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	ret = kstrtobool(buf, &val);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (val)
> +		klp_force_transitions();

The plural "transitions" is inconsistent with the rest of the code,
which uses it in the singular.  How about klp_force_transition() or
klp_force()?

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists