lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/2] kpatch: dynamic kernel patching
On Sat, 17 May 2014 00:32:10 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:


> That's true, and we come back to what has been said at the very beginning
> for both aproaches -- you can't really get away without manual human
> inspection of the patches that are being applied.
>
> The case you have outlined is indeed problematic for the "lazy switching"
> aproach, and can be worked around (interim function, which takes both
> mutexes in well defined order, for example).
>
> You can construct a broken locking scenario for stop_machine() aproach as
> well -- consider a case when you are exchaing a function which changes the
> locking order of two locks/mutexes. How do you deal with the rest of the
> code where the locks are being acquired, but not through the functions
> you've exchanged?

I'm a bit confused by this. If you change locking order and there's
other functions that acquire it in reverse order that's not in the
patch, that sounds like you just introduced a new bug.

>
> So again -- there is no disagreement, I believe, about the fact that "live
> patches" can't be reliably auto-generated, and human inspection will
> always be necessary. Given the intended use-case (serious CVEs mostly,
> handled by distro vendors), this is fine.
>

Right, I absolutely agree that the real use case is to fix off by one
errors and buffer overflows. Anything that is more complex really needs
a reboot (at a minimum, a kexec reboot). I know our customers would love
to see this upgrading entire kernels, but that's rather unrealistic.

Why I still favor the stop_machine approach, is because the method of
patching is a bit simpler that way. A "lazy" approach will be more
complex and more likely to be buggy. The thing I'm arguing here is not
the end result being a problem, but the implementation of the patching
itself causing bugs.

I rather have a "lazy" approach, but like ftrace and its breakpoint
method, the stop_machine approach is the simpler way to make sure the
patching works before we try to optimize it.

-- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-17 03:01    [W:0.158 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site