On 5/20/19 5:09 PM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2019, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
These two testing scenarios might be interesting to add to our selftests
suite. Can you post or add the source(s) to livepatch-test<n>.ko to the
tarball?
I made the livepatches using kpatch-build and this simple patch:
diff --git a/fs/proc/version.c b/fs/proc/version.c
index 94901e8e700d..6b8a3449f455 100644
--- a/fs/proc/version.c
+++ b/fs/proc/version.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ static int version_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
utsname()->sysname,
utsname()->release,
utsname()->version);
+ seq_printf(m, "example livepatch\n");
return 0;
}
I just created enough livepatches with the same source patch so that I
could reproduce the issue somewhat reliably.
I'll see if I can make something that uses klp directly.
Ah ok great, I was hoping it was a relatively simply livepatch. We
could probably reuse lib/livepatch/test_klp_livepatch.c to do this
(patching cmdline_proc_show instead).
The rest of the userspace in the initramfs is really straight forward
with the only interesting parts being a couple of shell scripts.
Yup. I'll be on PTO later this week, but I'll see about extracting the
scripts and building a pile of livepatch .ko's to see how easily it
reproduces without qemu.