On Wed 2016-05-04 12:02:36, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu 2016-04-28 15:44:48, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > Change livepatch to use a basic per-task consistency model. This is the > > > foundation which will eventually enable us to patch those ~10% of > > > security patches which change function or data semantics. This is the > > > biggest remaining piece needed to make livepatch more generally useful. > > > > I spent a lot of time with checking the memory barriers. It seems that > > they are basically correct. Let me use my own words to show how > > I understand it. I hope that it will help others with review. > > [...snip a ton of useful comments...] > > Thanks, this will help a lot! I'll try to incorporate your barrier > comments into the code. Thanks a lot. > I also agree that kpatch_patch_task() is poorly named. I was trying to > make it clear to external callers that "hey, the task is getting patched > now!", but it's internally inconsistent with livepatch code because we > make a distinction between patching and unpatching. > > Maybe I'll do: > > klp_update_task_patch_state() I like it. It is long but it well describes the purpose. Livepatch is using many state variables: + global: klp_transition_patch, klp_target_state + per task specific: TIF_PENDING_PATCH, patch_state + per each new function: transition, patched + per old function: func_stack + per object: patched, loaded + per patch: enabled The dependency between them and the workflow is important to create a mental picture about the Livepatching. Good names help with it. Best Regards, Petr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
