linux-kernel - Re: PATCH v6 0/6] livepatch: Atomic replace feature

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: <1dd714ce-8d11-78b9-51f0-2b71734949e1@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:28:22 -0500
From:   Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, jeyu@...nel.org,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH v6 0/6] livepatch: Atomic replace feature

On 02/01/2018 08:49 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> 
> Well, one more thing. I think there is a problem with shadow variables. 
> Similar to callbacks situation. Shadow variables cannot be destroyed the 
> way it is shown in our samples. Cumulative patches want to preserve 
> everything as much as possible. If I'm right, it should be mentioned in 
> the documentation.

Are you talking about using klp_shadow_free_all() call in a module_exit
routine?  Yeah, I think in this case, that responsibility would be
passed to the newly loaded cumulative patch, right?


-- Joe