Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:44:29 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: live-patching@vger.kernel.org, sjenning@redhat.com, jkosina@suse.cz,
        vojtech@suse.cz, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC kgr on klp 0/9] kGraft on the top of KLP
Message-ID: <20150504154429.GA21537@treble.redhat.com>
References: <1430739625-4658-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz>
 <1430742009-5895-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1430742009-5895-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1294
Lines: 34

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 02:20:09PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> this is a patchset which teaches the Kernel Live Patching to be
> consistent when patching with the use of the kGraft approach [1].
> Besides helpers, the set adds support for consistency models,
> implements the kGraft consistency model, and finally allows for
> sending signals to complete the patching process quickly (but still
> safely).
> 
> Currently we have only two consistency models:
> * none
> * kGraft
> 
> None is the one which was present before the patchset and that one
> indeed guarantees no consistency at all. LEAVE_FUNCTION and
> SWITCH_FUNCTION as was described earlier [2]. kGraft is based on the
> well-known RCU principle and every process is converted to the patched
> world on its own, safely. kGraft is LEAVE_KERNEL and SWITCH_THREAD.

Why do we need multiple consistency models?

What are the advantages of the kGraft model over the kGraft/kpatch
hybrid model [1]?

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1423499826.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com

-- 
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/