[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150504154429.GA21537@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:44:29 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: live-patching@...r.kernel.org, sjenning@...hat.com,
jkosina@...e.cz, 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, May 04, 2015 at 02:20:09PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is a patchset which teaches the Kernel Live Patching to be
> consistent when patching with the use of the kGraft approach [1].
> Besides helpers, the set adds support for consistency models,
> implements the kGraft consistency model, and finally allows for
> sending signals to complete the patching process quickly (but still
> safely).
>
> Currently we have only two consistency models:
> * none
> * kGraft
>
> None is the one which was present before the patchset and that one
> indeed guarantees no consistency at all. LEAVE_FUNCTION and
> SWITCH_FUNCTION as was described earlier [2]. kGraft is based on the
> well-known RCU principle and every process is converted to the patched
> world on its own, safely. kGraft is LEAVE_KERNEL and SWITCH_THREAD.
Why do we need multiple consistency models?
What are the advantages of the kGraft model over the kGraft/kpatch
hybrid model [1]?
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1423499826.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com
--
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