linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/module: Support for patching modules during runtime

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: <86y0rq8cf8.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:55:55 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: fanqincui  <fanqincui@....com>
Cc: "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
	catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Fanqin Cui" <cuifq1@...natelecom.cn>,
	hanht2@...natelecom.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/module: Support for patching modules during runtime

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:32:19 +0100,
fanqincui <fanqincui@....com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi marc,
> The callback function is designed by the developer. Developers need
> to use the callback function to patch their own module code. Under
> this premise, developers are responsible for providing the correct
> callback function.
> A correct callback function implementation does not require further
> patching.

Well, you can't know about that. We patch basic primitives such as
atomics, system register access, and plenty of other things. These
things need to interoperate with the rest of the kernel.

It's already difficult to guarantee inside the kernel itself. Having
it in random modules will be even harder.

> Furthermore, the callback itself must be executable. If the callback
> function has problems, the module's functionality will be affected.

Exactly. Hence my question.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.