Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2017-08-30 14:51:16, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:50:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2017-08-11 16:11:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > > Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two
> > > > > functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't
> > > > > managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the
> > > > > other hand I do not mind it much.
> > > > 
> > > > Now "force" has two meanings, which is a little confusing.  What do you
> > > > think about just having two separate write-only sysfs flags?
> > > > 
> > > >   echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/signal
> > > >   echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/force
> > > 
> > > I like the simplicity but I wonder if there might be more actions
> > > that need to be forced in the future. Then this might cause
> > > confusion.
> > > 
> > > For example, we have force_module_load attribute in kGraft.
> > > It allows to load a module even when it is refused by a livepatch.
> > > It is handy when there is a harmless bug in the patch.
> 
> We can add force_module_load attribute too in that case. But I see your 
> point, I just don't think it would be that serious as far as confusion is 
> concerned.
> 
> > What if we put the flags in the per-patch dir?
> > 
> >   /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/signal
> >   /sys/kernel/livepatch/<patch>/force
> > 
> > That seems pretty unambiguous.  The "force" is specific to the patch, it
> > clearly means we are forcing the patch.
> 
> Petr, would this solve your worries?

I like it.

Best Regards,
Petr