From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris J Arges Subject: Re: livepatch: old_name@old_addr scheme in livepatch sysfs directory Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:01:40 -0500 Message-ID: <56358EA4.10900@canonical.com> References: <1446263060-22175-1-git-send-email-chris.j.arges@canonical.com> <20151101015258.GA8199@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151101015258.GA8199@packer-debian-8-amd64.digitalocean.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jessica Yu Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf , Seth Jennings , Jiri Kosina , Vojtech Pavlik , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2015 08:53 PM, Jessica Yu wrote: > +++ Chris J Arges [30/10/15 22:44 -0500]: >> The following directory structure will allow for cases when the same >> function name exists in a single object. >> /sys/kernel/livepatch/// > > Hi Chris, thanks for the patch. > > I think the last time this issue was discussed, the conclusion was > that concatenating the address to the function name constitutes as an > information leak (as the sysfs entry is visible to non-root users). > > One option suggested by Josh in that thread would be to do something > like "func.n", where n is just the nth occurrence of the symbol name. > Another option might be to keep the func@addr format but not make these > entries visible to non-root users. > > Jessica > Jessica, Makes sense to me. Is there a reason why the sysfs entries are visible to non-root users? Otherwise, if there is a use-case for keeping the permissions the same, then I'd be happy to to use the 'func.n' format for v2. --chris