linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] livepatch: klp_send_signal should treat PF_IO_WORKER like PF

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: <f4969563-23fa-cb49-8243-d600f1bf0b23@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:30:37 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dong Kai <dongkai11@...wei.com>, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: klp_send_signal should treat PF_IO_WORKER like
 PF_KTHREAD

On 3/25/21 3:30 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>> (PF_KTHREAD | PF_IO_WORKER) is open coded in soo many places maybe this is a
>> silly question, but...
>>
>> If the livepatch code could use fake_signal_wake_up(), we could consolidate
>> the pattern in klp_send_signals() with the one in freeze_task().  Then there
>> would only one place for wake up / fake signal logic.
>>
>> I don't fully understand the differences in the freeze_task() version, so I
>> only pose this as a question and not v2 request.
> 
> The plan was to remove our live patching fake signal completely and use 
> the new infrastructure Jens proposed in the past.

That would be great, I've actually been waiting for that to show up!
I would greatly prefer this approach if you deem it suitable for 5.12,
if not we'll still need the temporary work-around for live patching.

-- 
Jens Axboe