linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] livepatch: Add config LIVEPATCH

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2509120912510.26788@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 09:14:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, 
    Xi Zhang <zhangxi@...inos.cn>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org, 
    loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] livepatch: Add config LIVEPATCH_DEBUG to get
 debug information

On Fri, 12 Sep 2025, Tiezhu Yang wrote:

> On 2025/9/11 下午9:50, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2025, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > 
> >> Add config LIVEPATCH_DEBUG and define DEBUG if CONFIG_LIVEPATCH_DEBUG
> >> is set, then pr_debug() can print a debug level message, it is a easy
> >> way to get debug information without dynamic debugging.
> > 
> > I do not have a strong opinion but is it really worth it? Configuring
> 
> This is an alternative way, there are some similar usages:
> 
> drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c:
> #ifdef CONFIG_EXYNOS_IOMMU_DEBUG
> #define DEBUG
> #endif
> 
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/s3c2410.c:
> #ifdef CONFIG_MTD_NAND_S3C2410_DEBUG
> #define DEBUG
> #endif
> 
> drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:
> #ifdef CONFIG_USB_STORAGE_DEBUG
> #define DEBUG
> #endif
> 
> > dynamic debug is not difficult, it is more targetted (you can enable it
> > just for a subset of functions in livepatch subsystem) and it can also be
> > done on the command line.
> 
> Yes, this is true. It is up to the maintainers to apply this patch
> or not.

Right and I do not see the point to have it in the tree for the reasons 
above.

Miroslav