linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 02/22] liveupdate: luo

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: <CA+CK2bC2yptSzT+FJaef_K3bvOeDmmOzZVf3VakaKn6r7qk+dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:59:26 -0500
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Cc: pratyush@...nel.org, jasonmiu@...gle.com, graf@...zon.com, 
	dmatlack@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, corbet@....net, 
	rdunlap@...radead.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, kanie@...ux.alibaba.com, 
	ojeda@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org, yoann.congal@...le.fr, 
	mmaurer@...gle.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, chenridong@...wei.com, 
	axboe@...nel.dk, mark.rutland@....com, jannh@...gle.com, 
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, hannes@...xchg.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, 
	david@...hat.com, joel.granados@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, 
	anna.schumaker@...cle.com, song@...nel.org, linux@...ssschuh.net, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, 
	bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, 
	rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org, bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org, 
	cw00.choi@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, yesanishhere@...il.com, 
	Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com, 
	aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, 
	andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, leon@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de, 
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, wagi@...nel.org, djeffery@...hat.com, 
	stuart.w.hayes@...il.com, ptyadav@...zon.de, lennart@...ttering.net, 
	brauner@...nel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	saeedm@...dia.com, ajayachandra@...dia.com, jgg@...dia.com, parav@...dia.com, 
	leonro@...dia.com, witu@...dia.com, hughd@...gle.com, skhawaja@...gle.com, 
	chrisl@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/22] liveupdate: luo_core: integrate with KHO

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 8:08 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 01:23:51PM -0500, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 9:17 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > +static int __init liveupdate_early_init(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +     int err;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +     err = luo_early_startup();
> > > > > > +     if (err) {
> > > > > > +             luo_global.enabled = false;
> > > > > > +             luo_restore_fail("The incoming tree failed to initialize properly [%pe], disabling live update\n",
> > > > > > +                              ERR_PTR(err));
> > > > >
> > > > > What's wrong with a plain panic()?
> > > >
> > > > Jason suggested using the luo_restore_fail() function instead of
> > > > inserting panic() right in code somewhere in LUOv3 or earlier. It
> > > > helps avoid sprinkling panics in different places, and also in case if
> > > > we add the maintenance mode that we have discussed in LUOv6, we could
> > > > update this function as a place where that mode would be switched on.
> > >
> > > I'd agree if we were to have a bunch of panic()s sprinkled in the code.
> > > With a single one it's easier to parse panic() than lookup what
> > > luo_restore_fail() means.
> >
> > The issue is that removing luo_restore_fail() removes the only
> > dependency on luo_internal.h in this patch. This would require me to
> > move the introduction of that header file to a later patch in the
> > series, which is difficult to handle via a simple fix-up.
> >
> > Additionally, I still believe the abstraction is cleaner for future
> > extensibility (like the maintenance mode), even if it currently wraps
> > a single panic (which is actually a good thing, I have cleaned-up
> > things substantially to have  a single point  of panic since v2).
> > Therefore, it is my preference to keep it as is, unless a full series
> > is needed to be re-sent.
>
> Well, let's keep it. If we won't see new users or extensions to
> luo_restore_fail() we can kill it later.

SGTM.

>
> > Pasha
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.