Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:55:23 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Cc:     jpoimboe@redhat.com, jikos@kernel.org, mbenes@suse.cz,
        joe.lawrence@redhat.com, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, songmuchun@bytedance.com,
        qirui.001@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] livepatch: Don't block removal of patches that are
 safe to unload
Message-ID: <YjH6W6eL1XQAGcxD@alley>
References: <20220312152220.88127-1-zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220312152220.88127-1-zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 2022-03-12 23:22:20, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> module_put() is not called for a patch with "forced" flag. It should
> block the removal of the livepatch module when the code might still
> be in use after forced transition.
> 
> klp_force_transition() currently sets "forced" flag for all patches on
> the list.
> 
> In fact, any patch can be safely unloaded when it passed through
> the consistency model in KLP_UNPATCHED transition.
> 
> By other words, the "forced" flag must be set only for livepatches
> that are being removed. In particular, set the "forced" flag:
> 
>   + only for klp_transition_patch when the transition to KLP_UNPATCHED
>     state was forced.
> 
>   + all replaced patches when the transition to KLP_PATCHED state was
>     forced and the patch was replacing the existing patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>

Looks reasonable, passes livepatch tests:

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Just let me repeat. The "force" flags must be used carefully because
it breaks the consistency model.

Best Regards,
Petr