linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] livepatch: introduce klp

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: <17CDE51B-D42D-471F-8E32-64C8D9C06413@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 16:09:10 +0800
From: zhang warden <zhangwarden@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
 Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
 Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
 live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: introduce klp_func called interface



> On May 21, 2024, at 16:04, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> Another motivation to use ftrace for testing is that it does not
> affect the performance in production.
> 
> We should keep klp_ftrace_handler() as fast as possible so that we
> could livepatch also performance sensitive functions.
> 

How about using unlikely() for branch testing? If we use unlikely, maybe there is no negative effect to klp_ftrace_handler() once this function is called.

Regards,
Wardenjohn