linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Allow loading modules on architectures without HAVE_RELIABLE

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: <20171221151428.rt4dlizxb5nqhb3h@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:14:28 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        jbaron@...mai.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] livepatch: Allow loading modules on architectures
 without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE

On Fri 2017-12-08 18:25:23, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Now that immediate feature was removed, it is not possible to load
> livepatch modules on architectures without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE. Fix
> it by removing guilty check in klp_register_patch().
> 
> The architectures without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE will now rely only on
> kernelspace/userspace boundary switching, the (fake) signal and force
> feature.

I do not thing that this is a good idea. It encourages people to use
the force feature. They might get used to it.

If people are going to provide livepatches, they should be capable
enough to provide a kernel where it is allowed. IMHO, the upstream
kernel should not support bad/dirty practices out of box.

Best Regards,
Petr