[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f94c399-fe72-58f9-bd63-b08c46bb47b3@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:09:48 -0500
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@...tuozzo.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/10] livepatch: Atomic replace feature
On 03/08/2018 10:01 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2018-03-07 16:55:53, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>> Running against v10, callbacks seem to be good up until I disable an
>> atomic replace patch. My understanding is that the original patch's
>> unpatch callbacks should be skipped (as they were). I was surprised to
>> see that atomic replacement patch only ran it's post-unpatch callback.
>
> Great catch!
>
> I guess that it is caused by the heuristic used in
> klp_unpatch_object() to decide whether the object is patched
> or not.
>
> We need to change the state only when manipulating the
> statically defined functions.
>
> Thanks a lot for so extensive testing!!!
Sorry for not getting to this series sooner. I'm trying to refit these
tests into a kselftest so we can more easily reuse them. Still hacking
away at it, but I'll post when something soon to start a livepatch
selftests conversation :)
-- Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists