[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170816145007.GD601@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:50:07 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org,
lpechacek@...e.cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] livepatch: Introduce force sysfs attribute
On Fri 2017-08-11 16:11:31, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > Now there is a sysfs attribute called "force", which provides two
> > functionalities, "signal" and "force" (previously "unmark"). I haven't
> > managed to come up with better names. Proposals are welcome. On the
> > other hand I do not mind it much.
>
> Now "force" has two meanings, which is a little confusing. What do you
> think about just having two separate write-only sysfs flags?
>
> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/signal
> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/livepatch/force
I like the simplicity but I wonder if there might be more actions
that need to be forced in the future. Then this might cause
confusion.
For example, we have force_module_load attribute in kGraft.
It allows to load a module even when it is refused by a livepatch.
It is handy when there is a harmless bug in the patch.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists