Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc:     Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        Evgenii Shatokhin <eshatokhin@virtuozzo.com>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH v7 7/7] livepatch: Atomic replace and cumulative patches documentation
Date:   Tue,  6 Feb 2018 11:34:24 +0100
Message-Id: <20180206103424.10829-8-pmladek@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180206103424.10829-1-pmladek@suse.com>
References: <20180206103424.10829-1-pmladek@suse.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

User documentation for the atomic replace feature. It makes it easier
to maintain livepatches using so-called cumulative patches.

Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
---
 Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt b/Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5f1f3760b840
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/livepatch/cumulative-patches.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+===================================
+Atomic Replace & Cumulative Patches
+===================================
+
+There are dependencies between livepatches when more patches modify the same
+function(s). Then any newer livepatch must include changes from the older ones.
+Also the patches must be registered in the right order.
+
+This might become a maintenance nightmare. Especially if anyone would want
+to remove a patch that is in the middle of the stack.
+
+An elegant solution comes with the feature called "Atomic Replace". It allows
+to create cumulative patches that completely replace all older livepatches.
+
+
+Usage
+-----
+
+The atomic replace can be enabled by setting "replace" flag in struct klp_patch,
+for example:
+
+	static struct klp_patch patch = {
+		.mod = THIS_MODULE,
+		.objs = objs,
+		.replace = true,
+	};
+
+Such a patch is added on top of the livepatch stack when registered. It might
+be enabled even when some earlier patches have not been enabled yet.
+
+All processes are then migrated to use the code only from the new patch.
+Once the transition is finished, all older patches are removed from the stack
+of patches.
+
+Ftrace handlers are transparently removed from functions that are not
+longer modified by the new cumulative patch.
+
+As a result, the livepatch author might maintain sources only for one
+cumulative patch. It helps to keep the patch consistent while adding or
+removing various fixes or features.
+
+
+Limitations:
+------------
+
+  + Replaced patches can not longer be enabled. But if the transition
+    was not forced, the older patches might be unregistered, removed
+    and eventually used again.
+
+
+  + Only the (un)patching callbacks from the _new_ cumulative livepatch are
+    proceed. Any callbacks from the replaced patches are ignored.
+
+    By other words, the cumulative patch is responsible for doing any actions
+    that are necessary to properly replace any older patch.
+
+    As a result, it might be dangerous to replace newer cumulative patches by
+    older ones. The old livepatches might not provide the necessary callbacks.
+
+    This might be seen as a limitation in some scenarios. But it makes the life
+    easier in many others. Only the new cumulative livepatch knows what
+    fixes/features are added/removed and what special actions are necessary
+    for a smooth transition.
+
+    In each case, it would be a nightmare to think about the order of
+    the various callbacks and their interactions if the callbacks from all
+    enabled patches were called.
+
+
+  + There is no special handling of shadow variables. Livepatch authors
+    must create their own rules how to pass them from one cumulative
+    patch to the other. Especially they should not blindly remove them
+    in module_exit() functions.
+
+    A good practice might be to remove shadow variables in the post-unpatch
+    callback. It is called only when the livepatch is properly disabled.
-- 
2.13.6