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]

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 16:17:01 +0800
From: zhang warden <zhangwarden@...il.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
 Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
 Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
 live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: introduce klp_func called interface



> On May 31, 2024, at 22:06, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz> wrote:
> 
>> And for the unlikely branch, isn’t the complier will compile this branch 
>> into a cold branch that will do no harm to the function performance?
> 
> The test (cmp insn or something like that) still needs to be there. Since 
> there is only a simple assignment in the branch, the compiler may just 
> choose not to have a cold branch in this case. The only difference is in 
> which case you would jump here. You can see for yourself (and prove me 
> wrong if it comes to it).
> 
> Miroslav

Hi Miroslav,

Yes, more tests should be done in this case according to your opinion.

Regards,
Wardenjohn