Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] livepatch: introduce atomic replace
From: Evgenii Shatokhin
Date: Wed Jan 31 2018 - 04:14:39 EST
On 30.01.2018 22:24, Joe Lawrence wrote:
On 01/30/2018 01:19 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
[ ... snip ... ]
Our main interest in 'atomic replace' is simply to make sure that
cumulative patches work as expected in that they 'replace' any prior
patches. We have an interest primarily in being able to apply patches
from the stable trees via livepatch. I think the current situation with
respect to 'replace' and callbacks is fine for us as well, but could
change based on more experience with livepatch.
Well the callback implementation was based somewhat on theoretical
usage.. it was inspired by the kpatch macros that you talk about below,
in which we had a few specific use-cases. Converting (un)patch
notifiers to the livepatch model presented additional callback
locations, and as such we ended up with pre-patch, post-patch,
pre-unpatch and post-unpatch callbacks. Hopefully we'll get a better
idea of their worth as we gain experience using them. At this point in
time I would suggest keeping it as simple and safe as possible. :)
As an aside I was just wondering how you are making use of the callbacks
using the tool you mentioned (that is based on kpatch)? I see in the
upstream kpatch that there are hooks such as: 'KPATCH_LOAD_HOOK(fn)' and
'KPATCH_UNLOAD_HOOK(fn)'. However, these are specific to 'kpatch' (as
opposed to livepatch), and I do not see these sort of macros for the
recently introduced livepatch callbacks. It seems it would be easy
enough to add similar hooks for the livepatch callbacks. I was thinking
of writing such a patch, but was wondering if there was an existing
solution?
I've got a work in progress PR for this very feature:
https://github.com/dynup/kpatch/pull/780
Yes, exactly, I use that. It is an important piece of the puzzle.
Evgenii has already provided some helpful feedback. Another set of
eyes/testing would be appreciated!
Regards,
-- Joe
.