linux-kernel - Re: [POC 0/7] livepatch: Make livepatch states, callbacks, and shadow variables work together

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: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2407251619500.21729@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 16:22:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, 
    Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>, 
    live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POC 0/7] livepatch: Make livepatch states, callbacks, and shadow
 variables work together

Hi Petr,

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Petr Mladek wrote:

> This POC is a material for the discussion "Simplify Livepatch Callbacks,
> Shadow Variables, and States handling" at LPC 2013, see
> https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1541/
> 
> It obsoletes the patchset adding the garbage collection of shadow
> variables. This new solution is based on ideas from Nicolai Stange.
> And it should also be in sync with Josh's ideas mentioned into
> the thread about the garbage collection, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230204235910.4j4ame5ntqogqi7m@treble

looks good to me. It is a huge improvement I would say.

As you mention elsewhere, it would also be nice to include some 
documentation and samples in the next revision.

The selftests would need to be ported to the new infrastructure.

Do we still need klp_state->data member? Now that it can be easily coupled 
with shadow variables, is there a reason to preserve it?

Miroslav