Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:22:48 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>,
        Marcos Paulo de Souza <mpdesouza@suse.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, joe.lawrence@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] livepatch/shadow: Add garbage collection of
 shadow variables
Message-ID: <20230125232248.inewq5tlpwfk3rny@treble>
References: <20221026194122.11761-1-mpdesouza@suse.com>
 <20221026194122.11761-5-mpdesouza@suse.com>
 <20221104010327.wa256pos75dczt4x@treble>
 <Y2TooogxxLTIkBcj@alley>
 <878rkhyhhv.fsf@linux.fritz.box>
 <Y24cGpeO8UHeiKGl@alley>
 <20221113185138.oob2o3sevbgud5vs@treble>
 <Y8a4ZQ0sm5AOnY7R@alley>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8a4ZQ0sm5AOnY7R@alley>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 04:01:57PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> IMHO, this is the reason why we should make it per-object.
> 
> If the shadow variable was used by a livepatched module and we remove
> this module then the shadow variables would get unmaintained. It would
> results in the problem described in this paragraph.

Yes, that makes sense.  Ok, I'm convinced.

BTW, this is yet another unfortunate consequence of our decision many
years ago to break the module dependency between a livepatch module and
the modules it patches.  We already have a lot of technical debt as a
result of that decision and it continues to pile up.

In that vein see also Song's and my recent patches to fix module
re-patching.

-- 
Josh