linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] livepatch: introduce atomic replace

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: <3ac34cb7-8753-56bb-38b4-2a84b141e06a@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:14:02 +0300
From:   Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
        mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] livepatch: introduce atomic replace

On 30.01.2018 22:24, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 01:19 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
>> [ ... snip ... ]
>>
>> Our main interest in 'atomic replace' is simply to make sure that
>> cumulative patches work as expected in that they 'replace' any prior
>> patches. We have an interest primarily in being able to apply patches
>> from the stable trees via livepatch. I think the current situation with
>> respect to 'replace' and callbacks is fine for us as well, but could
>> change based on more experience with livepatch.
> 
> Well the callback implementation was based somewhat on theoretical
> usage..  it was inspired by the kpatch macros that you talk about below,
> in which we had a few specific use-cases.  Converting (un)patch
> notifiers to the livepatch model presented additional callback
> locations, and as such we ended up with pre-patch, post-patch,
> pre-unpatch and post-unpatch callbacks.  Hopefully we'll get a better
> idea of their worth as we gain experience using them.  At this point in
> time I would suggest keeping it as simple and safe as possible.  :)
> 
>> As an aside I was just wondering how you are making use of the callbacks
>> using the tool you mentioned (that is based on kpatch)? I see in the
>> upstream kpatch that there are hooks such as: 'KPATCH_LOAD_HOOK(fn)' and
>> 'KPATCH_UNLOAD_HOOK(fn)'. However, these are specific to 'kpatch' (as
>> opposed to livepatch), and I do not see these sort of macros for the
>> recently introduced livepatch callbacks. It seems it would be easy
>> enough to add similar hooks for the livepatch callbacks. I was thinking
>> of writing such a patch, but was wondering if there was an existing
>> solution?
> 
> I've got a work in progress PR for this very feature:
> https://github.com/dynup/kpatch/pull/780

Yes, exactly, I use that. It is an important piece of the puzzle.

> 
> Evgenii has already provided some helpful feedback. Another set of
> eyes/testing would be appreciated!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- Joe
> .
>