lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 05/10] livepatch: Support separate list for replaced patches.

> > > > Second, unrelated patches must never patch the same functions.
> > > > Otherwise we would not be able to define which implementation
> > > > should be used. This is especially important when a patch is
> > > > removed and we need to fallback either to another patch or
> > > > original code. Yes, it makes perfect sense. But it needs code
> > > > that will check it, refuse loading the patch, ... It is not
> > > > complicated. But it is rather additional code than
> > > > simplification. I might make livepatching more safe
> > > > but probably not simplify the code.
> > >
> > > We don't need to enforce that. The func stack can stay. If somebody
> > > wants to patch the same function multiple times (without using
> > > 'replace'), that's inadvisable, but it's also their business. They're
> > > responsible for the tooling to ensure the patch stack order is sane.
> >
> >
> > While it might make sense to ignore the patch stack (ordering) for
> > the enable operation. Do we really want to ignore it when disabling
> > a patch.
> >
> > By other words, do we want to allow disabling a patch that is in
> > the middle of the stack, only partly in use? Does not this allow
> > some other crazy scenarios? Is it really the user business?
> > Will it make our life easier?
>
> If there's no longer a patch stack, then there's no concept of a middle.
> We would expect the patches to be independent of one another, and so
> disabling any of them independently would be harmless.
>
> If any of the patches share a func, and the user disables one in the
> "middle", it's not our job to support that. The vendor / patch author
> should prevent such cases from occurring with tooling, packaging,
> documentation, etc. Or they can just use 'replace'.
>
> We can already have similar unexpected situations today. For example,
> what if patch B is a cumulative superset of patch A, but the user
> mistakenly loads patch A (without replace) *after* loading patch B?
> Then some unforeseen craziness could ensue.
>
> We can't control all such scenarios (and that's ok), but we shouldn't
> pretend that we support them.

FWIW I agree with the above. Provided we keep the func stack.

[...]

> > The question is what to do with the stack of patches. It will have
> > no meaning for the enable operation because it will be done
> > automatically. But what about the disable/unregistrer operation?
>
> Assuming we got rid of the patch stack, would we even need to keep a
> global list of patches anymore?

There are places we walk through the list of patches (klp_add_nops() in
this patch set, klp_module_coming()), so probably yes.

Miroslav

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-17 10:24    [W:0.046 / U:3.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site