linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] rpm-pkg: avoid install/remove the running kernel

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]

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 02:33:53 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@...hat.com>
Cc: dcavalca@...a.com, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, 
	nicolas@...sle.eu, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] rpm-pkg: avoid install/remove the running kernel

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:12 PM Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez
<jtornosm@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the problem with this?
> In my opinion, it is risky to remove the kernel that is running, that is
> the reason why I am trying to protect this.
> If you try to remove or update (and the running kernel is removed), if the
> kernel and modules are already preloaded in memory, it could not happen
> anything but some extra action could be necessary or automatically started,
> and even the new kernel could not boot.
> Fedora and others are taking this into account with upper tools and declare
> the running kernel as protected avoinding this action. But others
> (i.e. openSUSE Tumbleweed) allow this behavior.



As I replied in 1/2, I see an error like this:


vagrant@...nsuse-tumbleweed20231218:~> sudo rpm -i
kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-4.x86_64.rpm
file /lib/modules/6.7.0-12924-g660a5f4a53e7/vmlinuz from install of
kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-4.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package kernel-6.7.0_12924_g660a5f4a53e7-3.x86_64



You can proceed with 'rpm -i --force', but
that is the user's responsibility if something bad happens.







> It may only be a safety measure but it can also be beneficial to avoid
> problems, just in case.
> Besides, in this way, all the tested distributions would have the same
> behavior.
>
> If it is ok, I will create a following version patch describing the problem
> better and using indentation as you suggested for the other patch.


No, not OK.





>
> Thanks
>
> Best regards
> José Ignacio
>

--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada