linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/3] arm64 live patching

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

Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 18:00:43 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] arm64 live patching

Hi all,

with gcc-8 now being out which includes the patchable-function-entries feature,
I can now propose the live patching framework based on it. The series consists
of 3 parts:

1st: Implement ftrace with regs -- uses gcc-8's nop insertions to patch in
     ftrace calls.

2nd: "Classic" live patching infrastructure, as far as it's needed for backporting.

3rd: An attempt at reliable stack traces for the consistency model. I'm a bit
     uncertain whether the approach is correct.

	Torsten