[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240905163449.ly6gbpizooqwwvt6@treble>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 09:34:49 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: Wardenjohn <zhangwarden@...il.com>, jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
joe.lawrence@...hat.com, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] livepatch: Add using attribute to klp_func for
using function show
On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 12:23:20PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> I am not a fan. Josh wrote most of my objections already so I will not
> repeat them. I understand that the attribute might be useful but the
> amount of code it adds to sensitive functions like
> klp_complete_transition() is no fun.
>
> Would it be possible to just use klp_transition_patch and implement the
> logic just in using_show()?
Yes, containing the logic to the sysfs file sounds a lot better.
> I have not thought through it completely but
> klp_transition_patch is also an indicator that there is a transition going
> on. It is set to NULL only after all func->transition are false. So if you
> check that, you can assign -1 in using_show() immediately and then just
> look at the top of func_stack.
sysfs already has per-patch 'transition' and 'enabled' files so I don't
like duplicating that information.
The only thing missing is the patch stack order. How about a simple
per-patch file which indicates that?
/sys/kernel/livepatch/<patchA>/order => 1
/sys/kernel/livepatch/<patchB>/order => 2
The implementation should be trivial with the use of
klp_for_each_patch() to count the patches.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists