Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752276AbaKKRq2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:46:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54780 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752221AbaKKRqZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:46:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:45:55 -0600 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Vojtech Pavlik Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Seth Jennings , Jiri Kosina , Steven Rostedt , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, kpatch@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kernel Live Patching Message-ID: <20141111174555.GA28099@treble.redhat.com> References: <20141106202423.GB2266@suse.cz> <20141107074745.GC22703@infradead.org> <20141107131153.GD4071@treble.redhat.com> <20141107140458.GA21774@suse.cz> <20141107154500.GF4071@treble.redhat.com> <20141107212735.GA21409@suse.cz> <20141108034553.GA11663@treble.redhat.com> <20141108080754.GA28969@suse.cz> <20141110170903.GA11119@treble.hsd1.ky.comcast.net> <20141111090505.GA20424@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141111090505.GA20424@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:05:05AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:09:03AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > But there are a few (probably much less than 10%) cases like the locking > > > one I used above, where SWITCH_THREAD just isn't going to cut it and for > > > those I would need SWITCH_KERNEL or get very creative with refactoring > > > the patch to do things differently. > > > > I'm not opposed to having both if necessary. But I think the code would > > be _much_ simpler if we could agree on a single consistency model that > > can be used in all cases. Plus there wouldn't be such a strong > > requirement to get incremental patching to work safely (which will add > > more complexity). > > > > I actually agree with you that LEAVE_PATCHED_SET + SWITCH_THREAD is > > pretty nice. > > Cool! Do you see it as the next step consistency model we would focus on > implementing in livepatch after the null model is complete and upstream? Yeah, I'm thinking so. None of the consistency models are perfect, but I think this is a nice hybrid of the kGraft and kpatch models. It allows us to apply the greatest percentage of patches with the highest success rate, while keeping the code complexity at a reasonable level. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/