linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 05/10] livepatch: Support separate list for replaced patches.

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: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1804110949310.28885@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:56:05 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc:     Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/10] livepatch: Support separate list for replaced
 patches.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> > > I agree here. Practically we use only cumulative replacement patches at
> > > SUSE. So with that in mind I don't care about the stacking much. But, it
> > > may make sense for someone else. Evgenii mentioned they used it for
> > > hotfixes. Therefore I'm reluctant to remove it completely.
> > 
> > Well, it was convenient in some cases to provide a hot fix for a given bug
> > on top of our official cumulative patch. So far, such fixes were only used
> > on a few of the customers' machines (where they were needed ASAP). It just
> > made it easier to see where is the common set of fixes and where is the
> > customer-specific addition.
> > 
> > I think, we can use cumulative patches in such cases too without much
> > additional effort. For example, we can encode the distinction (base set of
> > fixes + addition) in the module name or somewhere else.
> > 
> > So, I think, it is fine for us, if stacking support is removed. Especially
> > if that makes the implementation of livepatch less complex and more
> > reliable.
> 
> Just to clarify, I think we are just proposing the removal of the
> enforcement of the stacking order.  We will still allow multiple
> non-replace patches to be applied.  We just won't enforce which patches
> can be disabled/removed at any given time.

Heh, so I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the removal of 
the stacking. Now it makes more sense.
 
> So I think your old way of doing things (individual unrelated patches on
> top of a cumulative patch) would still work.

Yes. On the other hand the user needs to be even more careful, so I'd 
expect an update of documentation with the removal :).

Miroslav