linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 07/11] livepatch: Add 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190103133720.3d57kssgvvg44zjt@treble>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:37:20 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 07/11] livepatch: Add atomic replace

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 01:47:40PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2018-12-17 16:27:41, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2018-12-13 16:55:28, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:44:27AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > Side note, it would probably be useful to have a klp_for_each_patch()
> > > helper.
> > 
> > Will do.
> 
> Hmm, there are two possibilities:
> 
> 1) #define klp_for_each_patch(patch)	\
> 	list_for_each_entry(patch, &klp_patches, list)
> 
> 2) #define klp_for_each_patch(patches, patch)	\
> 	list_for_each_entry(patch, &patches, list)
> 
> Problems:
> 
> 1st variant would need to declare klp_patches in
> include/linux/livepatch.h. Josh did not like even
> kernel/livepatch/core.h.
> 
> 2nd variant looks ugly to me.
> 
> 
> Alternative solution would be to move all klp_for_each*()
> definitions from include/linux/livepatch.h to kernel/livepatch/core.h.
> But there might be some users. I wonder if we use these
> macros when preparing the cumulative patches.
> 
> 
> As any solution looks controversial, I would prefer to postpone this change
> after this patchset is accepted.

I would vote #1, and just put it in core.c next to the klp_patches
definition.

But it's fine with me if you want to postpone it.

-- 
Josh