[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150212152405.GE18578@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:24:05 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 03:08:38PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I personally am not a big fan of the task_rq_lock() public exposure
> either. What might be generally useful though (not only for livepatching)
> would be an API that would allow for "safe" stack dump (where "safe" means
> that guarantee, that it wouldn't be interferred by process waking up in
> the middle of dumping, would be provided).
In general, I think a safe stack dump is needed. A lot of the stack
dumping in the kernel seems dangerous. For example, it looks like doing
a `cat /proc/pid/stack` while the process is writing the stack could
easily go off into the weeds.
But I don't see how it would help the livepatch case. What happens if
the process starts running in the to-be-patched function after we call
the "safe" dump_stack() but before switching it to the new universe?
--
Josh
--
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