[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1606271023350.6874@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:26:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>, matz@...e.de,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable non-ABI-compliant optimisations for live
patching
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > I thought that in such case, person creating the live patch should
> > > notice and adjust patch appropriately, at assembly level if
> > > neccessary..?
> >
> > Yes, that still holds; a lot of things could be automated though, and
> > creating the automation tools is one of the big TODO items.
>
> So the patch is not a bugfix, it is just something that slows down
> kernel to make stuff easier for the person doing the live patching...?
Well, up to the last week noone realized the implications IPA-RA has for
live patches. Now that we know about this, we have to deal with it
somehow; as currently gcc doesn't provide easy way for us to obtain the
information (non-existing -fdump-ipa-ra), disabling the optimization on
CONFIG_LIVEPATCH-enabled kernels is a sensible workaround before we're
able to get the information from gcc.
> What you actually want is "whenever source of function A influenced code
> in function B, I want to be notified", right?
>
> If gcc can eliminate an if() brach in function B, because it can tell
> reading function A it can not happen, you need to know. Maybe that's
> limited to ABI today, but...
Yeah; dead code elimination is also a thing to watch for.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists