Re: barriers: was: [RFC PATCH v2 17/18] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model
From: Petr Mladek
Date: Thu May 05 2016 - 06:22:08 EST
On Wed 2016-05-04 12:02:36, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the
> > > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of
> > > security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the
> > > biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful.
> > I spent a lot of time with checking the memory barriers. It seems that
> > they are basically correct. Let me use my own words to show how
> > I understand it. I hope that it will help others with review.
> [...snip a ton of useful comments...]
> Thanks, this will help a lot! I'll try to incorporate your barrier
> comments into the code.
Thanks a lot.
> I also agree that kpatch_patch_task() is poorly named. I was trying to
> make it clear to external callers that "hey, the task is getting patched
> now!", but it's internally inconsistent with livepatch code because we
> make a distinction between patching and unpatching.
> Maybe I'll do:
I like it. It is long but it well describes the purpose.
Livepatch is using many state variables:
+ global: klp_transition_patch, klp_target_state
+ per task specific: TIF_PENDING_PATCH, patch_state
+ per each new function: transition, patched
+ per old function: func_stack
+ per object: patched, loaded
+ per patch: enabled
The dependency between them and the workflow is important to
create a mental picture about the Livepatching. Good names
help with it.