[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZ_u-ChoLo2AW_DE@alley>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:36:56 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] selftests: livepatch: Test livepatching a heavily
called syscall
On Tue 2024-01-09 21:24:56, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> The test proves that a syscall can be livepatched. It is interesting
> because syscalls are called a tricky way. Also the process gets
> livepatched either when sleeping in the userspace or when entering
> or leaving the kernel space.
>
> The livepatch is a bit tricky:
> 1. The syscall function name is architecture specific. Also
> ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER must be taken in account.
>
> 2. The syscall must stay working the same way for other processes
> on the system. It is solved by decrementing a counter only
> for PIDs of the test processes. It means that the test processes
> has to call the livepatched syscall at least once.
>
> The test creates one userspace process per online cpu. The processes
> are calling getpid in a busy loop. The intention is to create random
> locations when the livepatch gets enabled. Nothing is guarantted.
> The magic is in the randomness.
>
> Reviewed-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@...e.com>
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists