On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:13:21PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > What I was getting at, the klp stuff is the very first thing we run when
> > we schedule the idle task, but its placed at the very end of the
> > function. This is confusing.
>
> I see.
>
>
> > The above still doesn't help with sol
On Thu 2018-01-25 11:38:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2018-01-25 10:04:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2018-01-25 10:04:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> > > index 6a4bae0..a8b3f1a 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sc
On Thu 2018-01-25 10:04:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> > index 6a4bae0..a8b3f1a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > #incl
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:42:40PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> index 6a4bae0..a8b3f1a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
> #include
>
On Mon 2017-02-13 19:42:40, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed to mak
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:51:29AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > What do you think about the following? I tried to put the logic in
> > > klp_complete_transition(), so the module_put()'s would be in o
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:51:29AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > What do you think about the following? I tried to put the logic in
> > klp_complete_transition(), so the module_put()'s would be in one place.
> > But it was too messy, so I put it in k
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch
> > > *patch)
> > >
> > > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
> > >
> > > + klp_init
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> >
> > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
> >
> > + klp_init_transition(patch, KLP_PATCHED);
> > +
> > + /*
> > +*
> @@ -347,22 +356,36 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
>
> pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
>
> + klp_init_transition(patch, KLP_PATCHED);
> +
> + /*
> + * Enforce the order of the func->transition writes in
> + * klp_init_tr
Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
This code stems
On Wed 2017-02-08 10:46:36, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > Notice in this case that klp_target_state is KLP_PATCHED. Which means
> > > that klp_complete_transition() would not call synchronize_rcu() at the
> > > right time, nor would it c
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 04:47:50PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Notice in this case that klp_target_state is KLP_PATCHED. Which means
> > that klp_complete_transition() would not call synchronize_rcu() at the
> > right time, nor would it call module_put(). It can be fixed with:
> >
> > @@ -387,7
On Mon 2017-02-06 13:51:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:44:31PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > > @@ -347,22 +354,37 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch
> > > > > *patch)
> > > > >
> > > > > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
> > >
> > And finally, the section "Limitations" has this text under the first
> > bullet:
> >
> > + The patch must not change the semantic of the patched functions.
> >
> > The current implementation guarantees only that either the old
> > or the new function is called. The functions are p
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:44:31PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > @@ -347,22 +354,37 @@ static int __klp_enable_patch(struct klp_patch
> > > > *patch)
> > > >
> > > > pr_notice("enabling patch '%s'\n", patch->mod->name);
> > > >
> > > > + klp_init_transition(patch, KLP_PATCHED
On Fri 2017-02-03 14:39:16, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:51:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > !!! This is the right version. I am sorry again for the confusion. !!!
> >
> > > static int __klp_disable_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> > > {
> > > - struct klp_object *obj;
> >
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> Petr has already mentioned majority of things I too found out, so only
> couple of nits...
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch
> > b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch
> > index da8
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:51:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> !!! This is the right version. I am sorry again for the confusion. !!!
>
> > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > security pa
Petr has already mentioned majority of things I too found out, so only
couple of nits...
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch
> b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch
> index da87f43..24b6570 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-livepatch
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
> > b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
> > index 7f04e13..fb00d66 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
>
> > + In that case, arche
!!! This is the right version. I am sorry again for the confusion. !!!
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest r
IMPORTANT: Please, forget this version. It is few days old
and incomplete and probably wrong.
I am sorry for confusion.
Best Regards,
Petr
On Thu 2017-01-19 09:46:21, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
This code stems
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:18:28PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2017-01-10 14:46:46, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2016-12-22 12:31:37, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:34:52PM +0100, Petr Mladek wro
On Tue 2017-01-10 14:46:46, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-12-22 12:31:37, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:34:52PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > On Wed 2016-12-21 15:25:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-12-22 12:31:37, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:34:52PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Wed 2016-12-21 15:25:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:32:46PM +0100, Petr Mladek wro
On Thu 2016-12-22 12:31:37, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:34:52PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2016-12-21 15:25:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:32:46PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > On Thu 2016-12-08 12:08:38, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > >
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > +#include
> > >
> > > #include
> > >
> > > @@ -264,6 +265,9 @@ static void do_idle(void)
> > >
> > > sched_ttwu_pending();
> > > schedule_pree
On Fri 2017-01-06 14:07:34, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2016-12-23 10:24:35, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > > > index 5efa262..e79ebb5 100644
> > > > > > -
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:34:57AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > @@ -740,6 +809,14 @@ int klp_register_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > /*
> > +* Architectures without reliable stack traces have to set
> > +* patch->immediate because there's
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:44:47PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > +void klp_start_transition(void)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *g, *task;
> > + unsigned int cpu;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(klp_target_state == KLP_UNDEFINED);
> > +
> > + pr_
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-12-23 10:24:35, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > > index 5efa262..e79ebb5 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/livepat
> @@ -740,6 +809,14 @@ int klp_register_patch(struct klp_patch *patch)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> /*
> + * Architectures without reliable stack traces have to set
> + * patch->immediate because there's currently no way to patch kthreads
> + * with the consistency mo
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> +void klp_start_transition(void)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *g, *task;
> + unsigned int cpu;
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(klp_target_state == KLP_UNDEFINED);
> +
> + pr_notice("'%s': %s...\n", klp_transition_patch->mod->name,
> + k
On Fri 2016-12-23 10:24:35, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > index 5efa262..e79ebb5 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > > #include
> > > > #inclu
> > > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > index 5efa262..e79ebb5 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > #include "patch.h"
> > > +#include "transition.h"
> >
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:34:52PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2016-12-21 15:25:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:32:46PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2016-12-08 12:08:38, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency mode
On Wed 2016-12-21 15:25:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:32:46PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-12-08 12:08:38, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > > foundation which will eventually enable us to p
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:32:46PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-12-08 12:08:38, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > security patches which change funct
On Thu 2016-12-08 12:08:38, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
This code stems
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > security patches which change funct
On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
On Tue, 24 May 2016, David Laight wrote:
> > > Related, please can we have a flag for the sleep and/or process so that
> > > an uninterruptible sleep doesn't trigger the 'hung task' detector
> >
> > TASK_KILLABLE
>
> Not sure that does what I want.
> It appears to allow some 'kill' actions to wa
From: Jiri Kosina
> Sent: 23 May 2016 19:45
> > Related, please can we have a flag for the sleep and/or process so that
> > an uninterruptible sleep doesn't trigger the 'hung task' detector
>
> TASK_KILLABLE
Not sure that does what I want.
It appears to allow some 'kill' actions to wake the proc
On Mon, 23 May 2016, David Laight wrote:
> Related, please can we have a flag for the sleep and/or process so that
> an uninterruptible sleep doesn't trigger the 'hung task' detector
TASK_KILLABLE
> and also stops the process counting towards the 'load average'.
TASK_NOLOAD
--
Jiri Kosina
SUS
From: Jiri Kosina
> Sent: 18 May 2016 21:23
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I think this situation -- a task sleeping on an affected function
> > in uninterruptible state for a long period of time -- would be
> > exceedingly rare and not something we need to worry about fo
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Yeah, I think this situation -- a task sleeping on an affected function
> in uninterruptible state for a long period of time -- would be
> exceedingly rare and not something we need to worry about for now.
Plus in case task'd be in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIB
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:16:22AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
>
> > What about tasks sleeping on affected functions in uninterruptible sleep
> > (possibly indefinitely)? Since all signals are ignored, we wouldn't be
> > able to patch those tasks in this wa
On Mon 2016-05-16 13:12:50, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2016-05-06 07:38:55, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > I have missed that the two commands are called with preem
On Tue, 17 May 2016, Jessica Yu wrote:
> What about tasks sleeping on affected functions in uninterruptible sleep
> (possibly indefinitely)? Since all signals are ignored, we wouldn't be
> able to patch those tasks in this way, right? Would that be an
> unsupported case?
I don't think there is
+++ Josh Poimboeuf [28/04/16 15:44 -0500]:
[snip]
diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
index 6c43f6e..bee86d0 100644
--- a/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/livepatch/livepatch.txt
@@ -72,7 +72,8 @@ example, they add
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-05-06 07:38:55, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > I have missed that the two commands are called with preemption
> > > disabled. So, I had the following crazy scenar
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:41:37AM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > +void klp_init_transition(struct klp_patch *patch, int state)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *g, *task;
> > + unsigned int cpu;
> > + struct klp_object *obj;
> > + struct klp_func *func;
> > + int initial_state = !state;
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed to mak
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:12:05PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2016-05-04 14:39:40, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >*
> > >* Note that the task must never be migrated to the target
> > >* state when being inside this
On Fri 2016-05-06 07:38:55, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > I have missed that the two commands are called with preemption
> > disabled. So, I had the following crazy scenario in mind:
> >
> >
> > CPU0CPU1
>
[...]
> +static int klp_target_state;
[...]
> +void klp_init_transition(struct klp_patch *patch, int state)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *g, *task;
> + unsigned int cpu;
> + struct klp_object *obj;
> + struct klp_func *func;
> + int initial_state = !state;
> +
> + klp_tra
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 01:33:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > index 782fbb5..b3b8639 100644
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> > @@ -29,6
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:57:01PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I have missed that the two commands are called with preemption
> disabled. So, I had the following crazy scenario in mind:
>
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> klp_enable_patch()
>
> klp_target_state = KLP_PATCHED;
>
>
On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> index 782fbb5..b3b8639 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/patch.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include "patch.h"
> +#include "tra
On Wed 2016-05-04 10:51:21, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:42:23AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > > foundation which will eventually enable us to p
On Wed 2016-05-04 12:57:00, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:48:54PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > > foundation which will eventually enable us to p
On Wed 2016-05-04 12:25:17, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:12:05PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2016-05-04 14:39:40, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >*
> > >* Note that the task must never be migrated to the target
> > >* state when being insid
On Wed 2016-05-04 12:02:36, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > > foundation which will eventually enable us to p
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:42:23AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch th
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:48:54PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > security patches which change funct
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:12:05PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2016-05-04 14:39:40, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > *
> > * Note that the task must never be migrated to the target
> > * state when being inside this ftrace handler.
> > */
> >
> > We
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > security patches which change funct
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:53:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > + * This barrier also ensures that if another CPU goes through the
> > > + * syscall barrier, sees the TIF_PATCH_PENDING writes in
> > > + * klp_start_transition()
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:42:23AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > security patches which change funct
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(klp_patch_pending(current)))
> > + klp_patch_task(current);
> > }
>
> Some more ideas from the world of crazy races. I was shaking my head
> if this was safe or not.
>
> The problem might be if the ta
On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
On Wed 2016-05-04 14:39:40, Petr Mladek wrote:
>*
>* Note that the task must never be migrated to the target
>* state when being inside this ftrace handler.
>*/
>
> We might want to move the second paragraph on top of the function.
>
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +* This barrier also ensures that if another CPU goes through the
> > +* syscall barrier, sees the TIF_PATCH_PENDING writes in
> > +* klp_start_transition(), and calls klp_patch_task(), it also sees the
> > +* above wr
On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> biggest remaining piece needed
Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
This code stems
82 matches
Mail list logo
