lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 05/11] livepatch: Simplify API by removing registration step
From
Date
On 12/06/2018 05:14 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2018-12-06 10:23:40, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 2018-12-05 14:32:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
>>>>> index 972520144713..e01dfa3b58d2 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
>>>>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
>>>>> */
>>>>> DEFINE_MUTEX(klp_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> -/* Registered patches */
>>>>> +/* Actively used patches. */
>>>>> LIST_HEAD(klp_patches);
>>>>
>>>> By itself, this comment makes me wonder if there are un-active and/or
>>>> un-used patches that I need to worry about. After this patchset,
>>>> klp_patches will include patches that have been enabled and those that
>>>> have been replaced, but the replacement transition is still in progress.
>>>>
>>>> If that sounds accurate, how about adding to the comment:
>>>>
>>>> /* Actively used patches: enabled or replaced and awaiting transition */
>>>
>>> The replaced patches are not in the list. This is why I used the word
>>> "actively".
>>

After writing out my suggestion I realized that's why you chose
"actively" and almost erased my comment. I think the extra text would
help a fresh reader of the code, so ...

>> The replaced patches are removed in klp_discard_replaced_patches(), which
>> is called from klp_complete_transition(). Joe is right. The patches are in
>> the list if a transition is still in progress.
>
> These are patches that are being replaced. The replaced (after the
> transition finishes) are not in the list.
>
> By other word, Joe's text could be understand that replaced patches
> will never get removed from the list.
>
> So, is the text below acceptable?
>
> /*
> * Actively used patches: enabled or in transition. Note that replaced
> * or disabled patches are not listed even though the related kernel
> * module still can be loaded.
> */

Yes this works and is more accurate than my original suggestion.

Thanks,

-- Joe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-06 15:37    [W:0.078 / U:0.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site