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
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
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
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
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
> > > ---
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
> > > ---
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 @@
> >
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 @@
> >
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, 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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);
> > >
> > > +
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);
> > >
> > > +
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);
> > +
> > + /*
> > +*
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
> + *
> @@ -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
> + *
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
