[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6941f79-5c9e-7c22-bee1-a00d32bea009@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:33:26 -0400
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
jpoimboe@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
alyssa.milburn@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org,
joao@...rdrivepizza.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: Rewrite ret_from_fork() in C
On 7/19/23 11:21, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2023-06-23 18:55:29, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> When kCFI is enabled, special handling is needed for the indirect call
>> to the kernel thread function. Rewrite the ret_from_fork() function in
>> C so that the compiler can properly handle the indirect call.
>
> This patch broke livepatching. Kthreads never have a reliable stack.
> It works when I revert it.
>
Just curious -- did the selftests catch this anywhere? I'm not 100%
clear on what trees / frequency they all run, so maybe Petr you found
this by code inspection or other means?
--
Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists