Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750709AbVITWr7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:47:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750710AbVITWr7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:47:59 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.198]:23197 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750709AbVITWr7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:47:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Mez5HcN/Ji0o9fCB/9yDT7AdOUFkMJInwkxzbk37Lqm9h+psq7tKgddMt3/04rmg/+ryiHk7y/sMroFsQC4kBPxk4wcJ76EgnqN5seJSUriTdD8EK9b/h8RAHF/VzB5hyXYYEn2P8xuBcYNKIfjwrVBKNhj4t3QJ1TJjJ7MBfVc= Message-ID: <9a87484905092015471c2dc329@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:47:56 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl Reply-To: jesper.juhl@gmail.com To: John Richard Moser Subject: Re: Hot-patching Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <43308815.1000200@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <43308815.1000200@comcast.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1617 Lines: 34 On 9/21/05, John Richard Moser wrote: [snip] > Besides getting rid of a pet peeve of mine (more rebooting than > absolutely necessary) and giving a way to continuously increase the size > of the running kernel with each bugfix, this has implications on servers > that don't want to reboot for whatever reason. For enterprise > applications, it would be possible to fix a kernel bug or security hole > that hasn't been triggered by loading a module with the bugfixes, > effectively hot-patching the kernel. > [snip] If you have uptime demands like that I think a much better approach would be to make sure the box is heavily firewalled so importance of the security of the host itself drops. If there's no way to get to a box in a way that enables you to actually exploit a security hole, then it doesn't matter much that the hole is there at all. Another option would be a clustered setup where you normally run the app(s) on nodeA, nodeB ... nodeN, then when you need to upgrade you move all running applications off of nodeA and upgrade it, move everything off of nodeB and then upgrade that, repeat for nr of nodes, finally redistribute the load properly again. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/