[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjH6W6eL1XQAGcxD@alley>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:55:23 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz,
joe.lawrence@...hat.com, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, songmuchun@...edance.com,
qirui.001@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] livepatch: Don't block removal of patches that are
safe to unload
On Sat 2022-03-12 23:22:20, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> module_put() is not called for a patch with "forced" flag. It should
> block the removal of the livepatch module when the code might still
> be in use after forced transition.
>
> klp_force_transition() currently sets "forced" flag for all patches on
> the list.
>
> In fact, any patch can be safely unloaded when it passed through
> the consistency model in KLP_UNPATCHED transition.
>
> By other words, the "forced" flag must be set only for livepatches
> that are being removed. In particular, set the "forced" flag:
>
> + only for klp_transition_patch when the transition to KLP_UNPATCHED
> state was forced.
>
> + all replaced patches when the transition to KLP_PATCHED state was
> forced and the patch was replacing the existing patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Looks reasonable, passes livepatch tests:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Just let me repeat. The "force" flags must be used carefully because
it breaks the consistency model.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists