On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 07:40:11PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2014-11-07 12:07:11, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 06:13:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2014-11-06 08:39:08, Seth Jennings wrote:
[...]
> > > > + up(&lpc_mutex);
> > > > + WARN("failed to apply patch '%s' to module '%s'\n",
> > > > + patch->mod->name, mod->name);
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct notifier_block lp_module_nb = {
> > > > + .notifier_call = lp_module_notify,
> > > > + .priority = INT_MIN, /* called last */
> > >
> > > The handler for MODULE_STATE_COMMING would need have higger priority,
> > > if we want to cleanly unregister the ftrace handlers.
> >
> > Yes, we might need two handlers at different priorities if we decide to
> > go that direction: one for MODULE_STATE_GOING at high/max and one for
> > MODULE_STATE_COMING at low/min.
>
> kGraft has notifier only for the going state. The initialization is
> called directly from load_module() after ftrace_module_init()
> and complete_formation() before it is executed by parse_args().
>
> I need to investigate if the notifier is more elegant and safe or not.
I looked it up and having a COMING notifier with priority INT_MIN is
effectively the same as having a call between complete_formation() and
parse_args() since the notifiers are called as the last thing in
complete_formation().
I think I've found a clean way to avoid the ref taking on the patched
modules using only the notifier and lpc_mutex. It will be in v2
(hopefully out in the next couple of days).
Thanks,
Seth
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
