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 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 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
29 matches
Mail list logo
