Re: live patching design (was: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: add sched_task_call())
From: Jiri Kosina
Date: Sun Feb 22 2015 - 03:52:46 EST
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Plus a lot of processes would see EINTR, causing more havoc.
> Parking threads safely in user mode does not require the propagation of
> syscall interruption to user-space.
BTW how exactly do you envision this will work? Do I understand your
proposal correctly that EINTR will be "handled" somewhere in the "live
patching special signal handler" and then have the interrupted syscall
Even without EINTR propagation to userspace, this would make a lot of new
syscall restarts that were not there before, and I am still to be
convinced that this is something we are not going to cause a lot of new
user-visible breakage with.
Yes, the breakage would be caused kernel bugs (I mostly envision drivers
to be problematic in this area) that would be nice to have fixed, but the
user experience that will come out of it will be just completely horrible.
Or did I misunderstand what you are really proposing?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/