lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] livepatch: add atomic replace
On Tue 2017-10-17 11:02:29, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On 10/06/2017 06:32 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > I don't really like allowing a previously replaced patch to replace the
> > > current patch. It's just more unnecessary complexity.

I am sorry to say but it really makes the code too complex.

> > > If the user
> > > wants to atomically revert back to kpatch-a, they should be able to:
> > >
> > > rmmod kpatch-a
> > > insmod kpatch-a.ko
> > >
> > Right - that's how I sent v1 (using rmmod/insmod to revert), but it
> > didn't account for the fact the patch or some functions may be marked
> > 'immediate' and thus its not possible to just do 'rmmod'. Thus, since in
> > some cases 'rmmod' was not feasible, I thought it would be simpler from
> > an operational pov to just say we always revert by re-enabling a
> > previously replaced patch as opposed to rmmod/insmod.
> >
> Hm. Would it make sense to remove immediate and rely only on the
> consistency model? At least for the architectures where the model is
> implemented (x86_64)?
>
> If not, then I'd keep such modules there without a possibility to remove
> them ever. If its functionality was required again, it would of course
> mean to insmod a new module with it.

I am fine with this compromise. It seems to be the only way to keep the
livepatch code somehow sane.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-17 16:28    [W:0.069 / U:5.288 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site