On 2015/1/22 11:51, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:42:29AM +0800, Li Bin wrote: >> On 2015/1/21 22:08, Jiri Kosina wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Li Bin wrote: >>> By this you limit the definition of the patch inter-dependency to just >>> symbols. But that's not the only way how patches can depend on it other -- >>> the dependency can be semantical. >> >> Yes, I agree with you. But I think the other dependencies such as semantical >> dependency should be judged by the user, like reverting a patch from git repository. >> Right? > > But with live patching, there are two users: the patch creator (who > creates the patch module) and the end user (who loads it on their > system). > > We can assume the patch creator knows what he's doing, but the end user > doesn't always know or care about low level details like patch > dependencies. The easiest and safest way to protect the end user is the > current approach, which assumes that each patch depends on all > previously applied patches. But then, the feature that disable patch dynamically is useless. For example, if user find a bug be introduced by the last patch and disable it directly, the new patch is no longer allowed from now unless enable the old patch firstly but there is a risk window by this way. > -- 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
