On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 08:05:38PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
> > > + /* Make sure we aren't patching a freed init section */
> > > + if (in_init_section(patch_addr) && init_freed())
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> >
> > Do we even need the init_freed() check?
>
> Maybe not. If
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:16:35 +0200
Christophe LEROY wrote:
> Le 10/09/2018 à 12:05, Michael Neuling a écrit :
> >
> >>> + /* Make sure we aren't patching a freed init section */
> >>> + if (in_init_section(patch_addr) && init_freed())
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Do we even
Le 10/09/2018 à 12:05, Michael Neuling a écrit :
+ /* Make sure we aren't patching a freed init section */
+ if (in_init_section(patch_addr) && init_freed())
+ return 0;
+
Do we even need the init_freed() check?
Maybe not. If userspace isn't up, then maybe
> > + /* Make sure we aren't patching a freed init section */
> > + if (in_init_section(patch_addr) && init_freed())
> > + return 0;
> > +
>
> Do we even need the init_freed() check?
Maybe not. If userspace isn't up, then maybe it's ok to skip.
> What user input can we process
> > For stable I've marked this as v4.13+ since that's when we refactored
> > code-patching.c but it could go back even further than that. In
> > reality though, I think we can only hit this since the first
> > spectre/meltdown changes.
>
> Which means it affects all maintained stable trees
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:44:05 +1000
Michael Neuling wrote:
> This stops us from doing code patching in init sections after they've
> been freed.
>
> In this chain:
> kvm_guest_init() ->
> kvm_use_magic_page() ->
> fault_in_pages_readable() ->
>__get_user() ->
>
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:44:05 +1000
Michael Neuling wrote:
> This stops us from doing code patching in init sections after they've
> been freed.
>
> In this chain:
> kvm_guest_init() ->
> kvm_use_magic_page() ->
> fault_in_pages_readable() ->
>__get_user() ->
>
