[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 08:14:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
sjenning@...hat.com, vojtech@...e.cz, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC kgr on klp 0/9] kGraft on the top of KLP
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > - the "immediate" one, where the code redirection flip is switched
> > unconditionally and immediately (i.e. exactly what we currently have in
> > Linus' tree); semantically applicable to many patches, but not all of
> > them
> >
> > - something that fills the "but not all of them" gap above.
>
> What's the benefit of having the "immediate" model in addition to
> the more comprehensive model?
Fair enoungh, I agree that in case of the hybrid aproach you're proposing
the immediate model is not necessary.
> > - the kGraft method is not (yet) able to patch kernel threads, and allows
> > for multiple instances of the patched functions to be running in
> > parallel (i.e. patch author needs to be aware of this constaint, and
> > write the code accordingly)
>
> Not being able to patch kthreads sounds like a huge drawback, if not a
> deal breaker.
It depends on bringing some sanity to freezing / parking / signal handling
for kthreads, which is an independent work in progress in parallel.
> How does the patching state ever reach completion?
kthread context always calls the old code and it doesn't block the
finalization; that's basically a documented feature for now.
That surely is a limitation and something the patch author has to be aware
of, but I wouldn't really consider it a show stopper for now, for the
reason pointed out above; it'll eventually be made to work, it's not a
substantial issue.
> I would say it's orders of magnitude more disruptive and much riskier
> compared to walking the stacks (again, assuming we can make stack
> walking "safe").
Agreed ... under the condition that it can be made really 100% reliable
*and* we'd be reasonably sure that we will be able to realistically
achieve the same goal on other architectures as well. Have you even
started exploring that space, please?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists