Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kernel Live Patching

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:05:05AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:09:03AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > But there are a few (probably much less than 10%) cases like the locking
> > > one I used above, where SWITCH_THREAD just isn't going to cut it and for
> > > those I would need SWITCH_KERNEL or get very creative with refactoring
> > > the patch to do things differently.
> > 
> > I'm not opposed to having both if necessary.  But I think the code would
> > be _much_ simpler if we could agree on a single consistency model that
> > can be used in all cases.  Plus there wouldn't be such a strong
> > requirement to get incremental patching to work safely (which will add
> > more complexity).
> > 
> > I actually agree with you that LEAVE_PATCHED_SET + SWITCH_THREAD is
> > pretty nice.
> 
> Cool! Do you see it as the next step consistency model we would focus on
> implementing in livepatch after the null model is complete and upstream?

Yeah, I'm thinking so.  None of the consistency models are perfect, but
I think this is a nice hybrid of the kGraft and kpatch models.  It
allows us to apply the greatest percentage of patches with the highest
success rate, while keeping the code complexity at a reasonable level.

-- 
Josh
--
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/