linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] livepatch: force transition to finish

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171120231442.epmw4jkhabbx4d5x@treble>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:14:42 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, jeyu@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
        lpechacek@...e.cz, pavel@....cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] livepatch: force transition to finish

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:11:14AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 
> > I agree; the only thing I think really has to be done is putting a comment 
> > there, explaining why forcing implies infinite module reference (and also 
> > perhaps making it therefore even more obvious from documentation, that 
> > this really is a last-resort-"you-know-what-you-are-doing" kind of knob).
> 
> Miroslav, could you please just send v2 of 2/2, so that I can apply it?
> 
> Josh, given your latest comment I assume that your Ack holds even for v2 
> with the proposed ammendment (perhaps with an extra comment), unless you 
> tell me otherwise.

Yeah, that's fine.

-- 
Josh