Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] livepatch: consistency model

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> 2) As mentioned above, kthreads which are always sleeping on a patched function
>    will never transition to the new universe.  This is really a minor issue
>    (less than 1% of patches).  It's not necessarily something that needs to be
>    resolved with this patch set, but it would be good to have some discussion
>    about it regardless.
>    
>    To overcome this issue, I have 1/2 an idea: we could add some stack checking
>    code to the ftrace handler itself to transition the kthread to the new
>    universe after it re-enters the function it was originally sleeping on, if
>    the stack doesn't already have have any other to-be-patched functions.
>    Combined with the klp_transition_work_fn()'s periodic stack checking of
>    sleeping tasks, that would handle most of the cases (except when trying to
>    patch the high-level thread_fn itself).
> 
>    But then how do you make the kthread wake up?  As far as I can tell,
>    wake_up_process() doesn't seem to work on a kthread (unless I messed up my
>    testing somehow).  What does kGraft do in this case?

wake_up_process() really should work for (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) 
task_struct. What was your testing scenario?

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux