[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230719204116.GF3529734@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 22:41:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
jpoimboe@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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 Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 04:33:26PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> 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?
I suspect Petr ran the selftests himself, they're fairly easy to run
(once you figure out the magic incantation) and insta fail.
I'm not sure the robots consistently run this stuff -- I've had these
patches exposed to 0day for weeks...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists